Petition PE406, from Margaret Doig, calls on the Scottish Parliament to redress the omissions concerning the current law and code of practice that govern post-mortem examination of bodies where the deceased has no surviving relatives.Members will see from their papers that a great deal of correspondence is connected with the petition. The Health and Community Care Committee approached every health board in Scotland to seek information on their policies on post-mortem examinations. If members have read the papers, they will know that there is a fair degree of uniformity among the protocols, most of which are along the lines of the guidelines that are issued by the Royal College of Pathologists and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland.It is up to the committee to decide how to proceed with the petition.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Deceased Persons (Law and Code of Practice) (PE406)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Janis Hughes Lab 2
- David Davidson Con 2
- Dr Jean Turner Ind 2
- Duncan McNeil Lab 1
- Shona Robison SNP 1
The record
8 contributionsShould we not send along the petition as part of the Executive's consultation on post-mortem examination, and await the results of that consultation? We should take the middle two actions of the four that are proposed in the clerks' paper.
I acknowledge that there was uniformity in the responses that the committee received, but that does not necessarily mean that there has been uniformity in practice. That is why Margaret Doig's concerns have arisen, and I commend her on the power of work that she has done on the issue.I support the first recommendation in the paper, on introducing a standardised system. However, it could be argued that that may end up being a recommendation anyway. We could implement elements of the other three recommendations. We could send the information that has been put together by Margaret Doig to the consultation, if she has not already done so, and ensure that the points are taken on board in the consideration of any new legislation. We could do that to reassure Margaret Doig that the Executive is in full possession of the information that she has provided.
I support what Shona Robison said. We cannot drop the first recommendation that there should be a standardised system. I hope that that will come out of any new legislation. Should we write to one or other of the justice committees, if not both of them, to find out whether they have taken a view? They will have to deal with a good chunk of that legislation and it would be good to establish relationships with those committees, so that we could shadow each other's work. The justice committees will come at the issue from a slightly different point of view; I am not saying that they are not the sensitive, caring creatures that we are, but there will be different responsibilities within the parliamentary process. We should ensure that the papers go to those committees, to be considered as part of their deliberations.
The important thing is that the petitioner wanted people without relatives to make decisions about post-mortems well before, for example, the kind of deathbed decision that might be made by relatives of other people. She wanted to make it clear that, if a person with no relatives puts the decision in writing in their will, that decision should be adhered to and no one should be able to countermand it. After reading through all the papers, I think that there is a slight possibility that a medical officer or consultant in charge could decide that, if the patient had no real relatives and if they could not get in touch with the patient's executor, they could go ahead with the post-mortem. I have read this lady's very well-researched information carefully and I believe that that is what she wants to make clear.The issue is different for children and I think—I hope—that that matter is being dealt with better. However, as far as adults are concerned, the petitioner wants to make it clear that a person's decision not to have a post-mortem should be written in tablets of stone and no one should be able to change it. That is best done up front instead of when someone is either dying or dead, and we should try to write that into our report on the petition. Perhaps David Davidson is right to say that it is a matter for one of the justice committees.
That is exactly why I said that we should take the matter to the Parliament's justice committees rather than simply reach a conclusion ourselves. Even though we might have sympathy with the view that is expressed in the petition, this sort of request would very much be an issue for the justice committees if it meant a change in the way that wills are processed.
That is a good point.
Members seem to be suggesting that we await publication of the outcome of the consultation before we consider whether to progress the first suggested action in the paper, which is to recommend to the Executive that there should be a standardised system for expressing wishes for the treatment of the body after death. I know from Ms Doig's correspondence that she has written directly to the minister on this matter, so I assume that the Executive has a deal of these papers. That said, it would not do any harm to send all the correspondence to the Executive and, at the same time, to ask it about the timetable for the consultation. We should also send the correspondence to the justice committees with a view to discussing with them how we might move forward on this issue. Are members agreed?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 13 Jan 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Health Committee Tuesday 13 January 2004 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 6
- Petitions Petitions · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 6
- Petitions Petitions · 13
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 33
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 24
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 7
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 11
- Petitions Petitions · 1
- Budget Process Committee business · 12
- Work Programme Procedure · 85
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.