Kedgley Sue: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12904] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like first to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue as others in the House have done on bringing the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill to Parliament and to the Health Committee. Even though she has not won the war as it were her bill has made a very valuable contribution to the whole issue of organ donation. I suspect that the Government’s Human Tissue Bill was sped up because her bill was selected from the ballot. The Government had been doing research on similar human tissue legislation but I think the Ministry of Health was galvanised and the whole work sped up because Jackie Blue’s bill had been selected from the ballot. 
We agree with what many speakers have said—namely that this issue is an extremely emotional and also a very sensitive one. Who amongst us does not wish there were more donors and who amongst us is not aware of the huge shortage of donors there is not just in New Zealand but around the world? People are already having debates in America about rationing donors so that older people would not even be eligible as donors only young people. We know that in China they are harvesting organs from prisoners and from people who have been sentenced to execution. They are taking those organs because of the huge shortage in China and everywhere else in the world. 
I think all of us wish there were a magic wand we could wave to make more organs available particularly when we contemplate the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in New Zealand. We know the huge demand for organs there will be. We look at the statistics and realise that only a tiny fraction of organs will meet the need—and it will get worse and worse. So there is a slight feeling of desperation around the whole issue of just how we are going to get enough organs to meet the huge demand as a result of diabetes and other diseases. 
When we first looked at this issue and Steve Chadwick was recounting some of the history—so too was Barbara Stewart who was there when we first began to consider the issue and I think Judy Turner was as well—I felt very strongly that not nearly enough was being done and that yes of course we should set up a register. When Jackie Blue’s bill came in I had some concerns about her intention to make a register that would be legally binding—in other words if people had indicated that they wanted their organs to be used in the event of death then that would be binding on the family no matter how much family members might be traumatised by that decision and despite the cultural sensitivities that Steve Chadwick spoke about. 
I thought that I would on balance support the establishment of a register but two particular issues persuaded me that really we could not in all conscience recommend the establishment of a register at this moment. The first was as others have mentioned the evidence that was presented to us by intensivists. They said that we might all feel good about setting up a register and it might make everyone feel better but there was no evidence internationally that it has resulted in an increase in the number of organs available. Given that that is the whole purpose of our debate—to increase the number of organs available—it seems rather pointless to establish a register and raise all those expectations if there is not any evidence anywhere around the world that setting up a register increases the number of organs available. In fact we were told that in certain areas it had resulted in a reduction in the number of organs available rather than an increase. That came as something of a shock to me and I think to other members. But in the end as one of the intensivists implored us we have to look at the evidence. They said we should not just come up with a politically driven decision that might make us all feel good politically but that there is no evidence for and that would not address the fundamental issue. 
The second issue was the realisation that only a very very tiny number of people—I am afraid I do not have the statistics here—would be able to give an organ. First of all people have to be brain-dead and there are only a few dozen people who are in the category firstly of being brain-dead and secondly with organs that are in excellent condition. It is no use having an organ that is diseased old or whatever and that cannot be given to another body. 
Only a tiny number of people can donate an organ and I think that that fact is often lost in the debate. People seem to think that if only we had a register there would suddenly be more organs available and the truth is sadly that that is not the case. Only a tiny number of New Zealanders every year would be able to have their organs taken from them once they have died. Secondly even if there were a register it would not likely increase the number. 
Thirdly there is the issue which has also been touched on of the incredible cultural sensitivity around donating organs and the transfer of organs from dead people into another person. There is no point just sweeping that issue under the carpet. There are very profound cultural issues around death and around the donating of organs from dead people. Amongst Maori and some other cultures there is a set of values that are very different from those of Europeans. We have to recognise and acknowledge those values which is why the Green Party will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from the Maori Party in respect of the Human Tissue Bill. We want to ensure that that legislation is culturally sensitive and is not imposing Pakeha values on other cultures in New Zealand. 
I say to Dr Blue that like everyone else we will not be supporting the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. We recognise that the Human Tissue Bill addresses some of the member’s concerns inasmuch as it has regulatory provisions for a register to be set up if there is evidence to demonstrate that it will be effective. At the moment that evidence is not there. We have recommended that those regulatory powers be there so that a future Government could set up a register as soon as it is believed that there is compelling evidence that having a register would result in an increase in the number of donors available. 
We certainly do not agree with the other aspect of Dr Blue’s bill—that any indication by someone that he or she will donate his or her organs after death should be legally binding. We think that the issues of the family and the whanau need to be taken into account. We congratulate Dr Blue on having this bill selected and considered at the Health Committee. We believe that it has contributed to the debate on organ donation. It has stimulated the debate and it has moved forward the consideration of the Human Tissue Bill. Even though Andy Tookey will not be pleased because this outcome does not provide the magic bullet solution he and others wish I think that realistically the decision we have come to is a considered decision and the right decision and perhaps in time he too will see that.