Official Report · Committee

Continued Petitions

Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post Mortems) (PE1911)

Wednesday 21 December 2022 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee About 10:00 Petitions 5 contributions · 3 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

5 contributions

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

The next petition is PE1911, which is on a review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. We are joined by a number of people in the public gallery who are directly affected and involved. We are also joined by Monica Lennon, who has an interest in the petition.

The petition, which was lodged by Ann Stark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems are carried out only with permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to next of kin as a matter of course.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to seek additional information from a number of bodies, and responses from them are included in our meeting papers.

The Royal College of Pathologists confirms that resource concerns are not the only or main reason for its disagreement with the proposal to automatically offer tissue samples to the next of kin. It reiterates the challenges regarding timescales and practicalities.

The chief coroner outlines the process of tissue retention and return in England and Wales, and includes a link to guidance on computed tomography scanning for the purposes of post mortems.

We have a written submission from Ann Stark, whom we thank for her assiduous contributions to our deliberations. Her submission highlights the use of body scanners as an alternative to post mortems, and additional information from her about their use has been summarised in the meeting papers that we have received and considered. She stresses the importance of people having a choice about how their body is handled and the importance of consent.

The committee has also received a number of written submissions from individuals in support of the petition and of the points that the petitioner has raised in written evidence.

As I said, we have Monica Lennon with us. Welcome once again to our proceedings, Monica. Before I open up the discussion to members of the committee, if there is anything that you would like to say in support of the petition, I invite you to do so.

Monica Lennon Lab Central Scotland

link

Good morning, convener. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak about the petition again. I will avoid repeating points that I have made previously.

I join the convener in thanking Ann and Gerry Stark, who are in the public gallery. I thank Ann for lodging the petition and for all the work that she has done to get to this point. They have raised difficult issues that many people cannot even face talking about, but the committee has had a number of supportive submissions from individuals who have had similar experiences.

Committee members know what the petition seeks to do. On the additional information that the committee has had since we last met, the information from colleagues in England is really important, particularly the submission from the coroner. We can see that there is a different approach in other parts of the UK, and divergence can be a good thing. When we have families telling us that there are serious issues about consent, proportionality and dignity for the deceased and their families, we have a duty to look at those issues. I really welcome the additional work by the committee, and I think that the submissions that have been received are helpful.

I still have concerns about the resource and workforce pressures that are raised in the submission from the Royal College of Pathologists. Those issues go beyond this petition, and they merit further explanation. I would certainly like to hear more from the Scottish Government.

To recap, we are here because of Ann and Gerry, who are the parents of Richard Stark. Richard was only 25 when he died in June 2019. It was a sudden and unexpected death. The committee might recall that Ann and Gerry had to fight for a very long time to get answers. Richard’s death certificate was changed about 18 months after he passed away, with the cause of death changed to being a suspected seizure.

Committee members will also be aware that the post mortem was very invasive. I know that this is not pleasant to hear, but, in the committee’s papers, there are details about Richard’s brain, tongue and other body parts being removed.

We have heard evidence about the use of scanners, particularly in different authorities in England. There are resource implications and costs to that, but we have heard how effective those scanners can be.

I am aware that the committee has been given a lot of information, but last week you got an email with a link to a video produced by professors at the University of Leicester. If you have not had a chance to look at that video—I think that it is only three minutes long—I would refer you to it.

On the aspect of the petition that relates to tissue and consent and the role of the next of kin, it should never take a family several months to find out what has happened to their loved one after death. In this case, we are talking about 65 tissue samples, and Ann had to fight the system to have those samples returned. This is going on and people are not talking about it—often because they do not know. Ann knew about it only because she was asking questions. That tells the committee that there are a lot of unknowns.

As you can imagine, it is difficult for Ann and Gerry to sit here today, so I do not want to add much more other than to say that we appreciate the work that the committee has done so far. Ann has felt voiceless in the whole process. The committee has been the only forum in which these issues could be brought into the public arena, so we really welcome the work that has been done. We note that the chief coroner has highlighted a number of points, and I believe that there has been an offer to connect the committee with senior coroners who have experience of the scanning technology. It would be very worth while to pursue that.

I am happy to stop there, convener. Thank you.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

Thank you, Monica. Thank you also for offering comment on behalf of the petitioners on this very difficult and sensitive petition. Having considered the evidence on the petition, I can say that we take the issues that it raises very seriously and that we want to explore it further. I suggest that we invite coroners and pathologists to give evidence, because I would like to understand the differences in approach between Scotland and England and to bottom those out.

David Torrance SNP Kirkcaldy

link

Once we have taken evidence from coroners and pathologists, I wonder whether we could invite the relevant minister to come before us to give evidence.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

We would therefore hear from coroners and pathologists and subsequently seek to hear from the minister in pursuit of the petition. Do colleagues have any other suggestions, or are we content to proceed on that basis? I see that we are content. We take the petition very seriously. We will keep it open, and it will obviously form a significant part of our workstream as we go forward. I hope that the petitioner feels that we are taking this seriously as we explore the issues raised and take oral evidence.

In this meeting

Everything on 21 Dec 2022 →

09:30 Decision on Taking Business in Private Procedure · 1
09:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 115
10:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
10:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4
10:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 5
10:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
10:00 New Petitions Petitions · 6
10:45 New Petitions Petitions · 7
10:45 New Petitions Petitions · 16
11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 3
11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 4
11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 5
11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 4
11:00 Continued Petition Petitions · 47

The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.