Turner Judy: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12619] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call for United Future on the second reading of the Human Tissue Bill. We will be supporting the second reading. I would like to congratulate the Health Committee and Sue Kedgley as chair of that committee on working on what is a very complex bill. I would also like to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue. I am glad she is in the House tonight because I know that this is something she has been really passionate about. For her the bill is a compromise position and that is a hard pill to swallow and I understand that. 
Back in 2002 when United Future enjoyed representation on the Health Committee I was able to be part of those early discussions around organ donation. Like Dr Jackie Blue and Sue Kedgley I was very moved by the story of advocates like Andy Tookey to see what we could do to improve organ donation rates within New Zealand. At the time a mandatory register seemed like an extremely sensible approach and a way of increasing the opportunity for organ donations within New Zealand. 
But even back in 2002 one of the things I remember very clearly was the submission we received from intensivists from those who work at the coalface of organ donation and intensive care wards with people who are on life-support machines and technically brain-dead and their grieving families who are in the process of making some horrendous decisions to turn off life-support. In those circumstances these amazing medics work with families to suggest the possibility that organ donation may be something they are able to consider. They said that we could regulate as much as we wanted regarding having a register and making it mandatory and closing the door for families to object once somebody had made up his or her mind—we could basically pass any law we liked—but they as caring health professionals working with families and loved ones were not ever going to insist that organs were harvested from a body against the wishes of a family. 
I found that very compelling and I have always believed that if Parliament is to do any work of substance then we must make sure that what we are talking about is no matter how ideal it is actually able to be applied and implemented where it matters. The very clear message we got from doctors at that time was that although they agreed with us that it would be great to improve the donation rate within New Zealand they were completely unconvinced that a register would secure a higher donation rate—that was their first point—and their second point was that we did not walk in their shoes. We did not understand the dynamics of the work that they do and therefore we needed to be developing ideas in consultation with them rather than dumping policy on them. 
However I think what the select committee has done in this regard is great. The fact that it has included a clause that permits the establishment of an opt-on register by regulation at a later date should we consider that to be the way to go is a very good step and it means that we can revisit this if we get greater clarity on how we can proceed in a way that has efficacy. 
Of course the bill is about more than just organ donation. It is about the handling of all human tissue other than that which is covered under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act passed in the last Parliament. There are some interesting provisions that I remember our talking about in relation to that Act such as trading in human tissue. I am really pleased to see that the committee recommended that the bill that existed at the first reading be amended so that offering providing requiring or accepting financial or other considerations for human tissue was totally prohibited ensuring that in New Zealand society we recognise the gift status of human tissue. The committee was very clear about making sure that the wording was not in any way able to undermine current provisions within Government policy that provide for income support for live donors—I think it is good to protect that policy gain—and it also reinforced the current status of blood donations as a gift. 
Another interesting ethical dilemma that is touched on in the commentary on the bill is the collection and use of gametes and embryos from dead persons. I remember that when we considered the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act we read some really interesting case history. There was the infamous case in Britain where a woman was allowed to harvest sperm from her dead husband then was unable under British law to use it to have a child by in vitro fertilisation. However she was able to transfer it to France from memory and under French law was able to use it. The ethical dilemma that that creates around children being born to a biological parent who has long since died is an immense issue but I think it is good that there is some reference to that and I like the default position that the committee has arrived at. The clear wishes of the deceased need to be taken into consideration in these matters particularly when dealing with say an unborn child whose mother has died in an accident but who is unable to be born live. Again the law as it applies to the mother applies to the child unless the child has previously been born. 
A number of really interesting ethical issues come up in this bill. I think the select committee has done a very good job. We appreciate the fact that it insisted on some flow charts to guide us through the hierarchy of consents that it has put in place because it is a very complicated issue. United Future is happy to support the second reading.