鈥淗OSPITALS QUIETLY KEPT CHILDREN鈥橲 ORGANS鈥� was one of the milder newspaper headings at the time. Given the events that have unfolded in Britain鈥檚 National Health Service in recent years, few doctors are now likely to risk the wrath of parents and the tabloid press by stockpiling body parts for medical research or teaching doctors, in particular pathologists (快猫短视频, 2 February, p 14). Angry press reports and comments heralded the revelation that such practices were the norm. The ensuing furore led to the Royal Liverpool Children鈥檚 Inquiry, better known as the Alder Hey Inquiry. Now though I hear, anecdotally at least, that there is an alarming shortage of organs for research purposes in Britain鈥檚 teaching hospitals.
As far as I know, ethical committees haven鈥檛 seriously discussed how to put matters right. Alas, I suspect the only way to do it will involve educating both patients and their relatives on the value of pathological specimens for future treatments and medical training.
First, though, we must work out how hospitals and doctors can best get relatives鈥� consent for keeping the organs of their loved ones. Ministers ought to be turning their mind to the problem, always remembering how highly sensitive these issues are. There must be clear practical guidelines for the retention and use of these organs. I believe what鈥檚 needed here is to set up a Royal Commission of wise and experienced minds to sort out matters.
Advertisement
A TIMELY editorial warned that only at our peril do we ignore the plight of the world鈥檚 many endangered animals and plants (快猫短视频, 19 January, p 3). Projects such as the Darwin Initiative that was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 get only paltry funding. And with a World Summit on Sustainable Development scheduled for August, now is an appropriate moment to put our money where our mouth is and to back studies of biodiversity with the kind of funds set aside for sequencing the human genome.
The editorial and its associated news item (鈥淔ish out the politicians鈥�) prompted me to ask environment minister Michael Meacher if he considered Britain was making an adequate contribution to the Darwin funds.
Meacher replied that Britain鈥檚 contribution of 拢3 million a year is small beer compared with the scale of the global crisis that biodiversity now faces. However, the government is reviewing its future funding of Darwin as part of the package of improvements it is planning for this year鈥檚 World Summit. He did point out, though, that Darwin has a good track record of making a positive impact well beyond the funding put into it.
Britain鈥檚 support for biodiversity conservation goes well beyond the Darwin Initiative, said Meacher. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also strongly supports UNEP鈥檚 Great Apes Survival Project. In addition to other bilateral initiatives, Britain is a supporter of the World Bank鈥檚 Global Environment Facility, now the largest single source of funding for conserving biodiversity in the world.
The final agenda for the World Summit is still being drawn up. But biodiversity has frequently been raised in the regional preparatory meetings, and any review of progress can hardly ignore an area that produced one of the original major outcomes of the Rio Earth Summit: the Convention on Biological Diversity.
I fear, though, that come August, the review summit could prove to be the 鈥渓ast chance saloon鈥� for too many of the world鈥檚 endangered species.