Turner Judy: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15439] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the Human Tissue Bill and like others who have spoken before I reflect on the fact that New Zealand like a lot of other countries does not have a particularly high organ donor rate and that the challenges that that provides us as a nation are not easily solved. My background with this issue goes back to the last parliamentary term when I was on the Health Committee. We had some interesting contact with people like Andy Tookey who was a long-time campaigner for asking Parliament to find some way to improve donation rates in this country. What I remember most clearly was our discussion with medical staff who work at the coalface of this issue on wards where people on life-support machines have been declared brain-dead and therefore the machine will be turned off. It is at that moment during that window of opportunity that an approach can be made to a family to see whether there is any openness to organ donation. We were told by the medical staff that we can write whatever we like into law but they will not remove organs from a body if the family objects because the reality that they deal with is such that they will not comply. So whatever we feel and believe about the need for improved donor rates we have to live with the reality of what is achievable and possible. However I still feel that we must not drop the ball on this matter. 
United Future believes that we must continue to think laterally and creatively around what possibilities we may not have yet explored for improving donor rates within New Zealand. What occurs to me at this stage—and I have thought about it over a considerable period of time—is that the obvious point or crux of the matter is the hearts and minds of family members at what is a very traumatic time in that family’s life. They are the people who decide and even if they know that their family member was keen to be a donor the pressures and emotional turmoil they are facing at that time can cloud the issue. This is a stone that I believe has not been fully turned over and explored yet. 
I agree with others that the fact that we have this silly donor provision on our driver’s licence is a complete nonsense. When we sign up for a driver’s licence we want a driver’s licence; we are not thinking about donations. When the question is put to us at that point we make a kind of snap and fairly thoughtless decision one way or another. It is a bit of a blunt instrument and it means nothing. But it occurred to me that we have one other activity in New Zealand which is in the area of blood donation whereby when people go and become a blood donor they are in donation mode—that is what they are there for and that is what they are considering. I think that we miss an opportunity in those circumstances. We have people who sit in a waiting room have a blood test lie down and give blood for 10 minutes or so then sit and have a cup of tea and a biscuit. People can be in the centre for at least half an hour sometimes even longer in donor mode and we do not seem to take what I think is a really respectful opportunity to discuss with people—who are obviously open to making a donation of human tissue—what the options are and what the ethical issues are around being a donor should that sort of tragedy hit them. It occurs to me that that would provide a better opportunity to sign up people or to engage with them on this matter. 
I am not completely convinced yet that a register would do anything and that is certainly what the medical staff said to us. They said that we could write diddly-squat in a book but they will not take any notice of it when they are dealing with hard family emotions. But what we could do is provide people who express a willingness to be an organ donor at that point with material to give to their family in advance prior to any tragedy being even a possibility. That can help them engage with their family and have a discussion that could be helpful in the midst of a tragedy when people are making all-important decisions. I have to believe that there is a big difference between somebody ticking a box on a driver’s licence application and saying that he or she is happy to be a donor and a person who has sat down with his or her family and explained and articulated his or her wishes the reasons why and any reservations he or she may have. 
One of the things we learnt is that people who want to be donors may be happy to donate an internal part of their body but they may have a hang-up about donating eyes retinas or things like that. They may find eyes a very sacred thing but there may be other parts of their body that they would happily be a donor of. If people have the ability to sit down and think through those issues with their family and talk about it in a moment of tragedy there may be an increased willingness by the family to think about that discussion and make that call. 
I suggest to the House that we have not thoroughly examined every opportunity yet. My suggestion may not work either but I do think there are other options. I think that particularly in relation to cultural matters and the issues that the Maori Party has sought to address—which I think are very very real—individual families iwi and extended families would love the opportunity to sit down and talk through what their response might be ahead of time. Whether that would make a difference at the end of the day who knows—I cannot make that call even for my own family. But certainly since the last parliamentary term and the petition by Andrew Tookey I have sat down with my family and clearly articulated to them my wishes should anything happen and I have clearly articulated to them my reasons behind them. We ended up having an extremely good discussion whereby they went away and thought about their wishes and we talked about it as a family. There were differing views and positions within our own immediate family but we came out of the discussion with a really clear understanding of what we would like to happen in our family. I do not how we would react if a crisis ever befell us—and God forbid that it ever should—because we can never predict how we would react in those circumstances or in the situation in which we find ourselves but I do know that the fact that we have had this discussion will be a helpful thing. 
I wonder how it is that we as a nation and the Government could help to facilitate those kinds of discussions in families and in other appropriate circumstances where it really could make a difference. I suggest that blood donors would be a good place to start because we are dealing with people who are already willing to make donations of this kind. I think it would be a wasted opportunity to not start there. I do not think that people would feel at all imposed upon in those circumstances because they are already there making a donation. 
United Future is happy to support this bill. We are glad there are some provisions in it that keep the discussion open around organ donation but we think a lot more could be discussed and that a greater range of options could be considered.