THE important but controversial Human Tissue Act, which received royal assent last month, requires patients or their relatives to give consent before researchers can use their tissue samples (快猫短视频, 3 July, p 5). The new law is intended to prevent any more scandals like that in 1999, when it emerged that doctors at the Alder Hey Children鈥檚 Hospital in Liverpool had retained organs from dead children without the parents鈥� consent. But during the bill鈥檚 passage through Parliament the Medical Research Council (MRC) warned that it would prevent scientists making links back to the patients and thus to other illnesses or treatments. So I asked Rosie Winterton, the minister taking the bill through the House of Commons, if the MRC鈥檚 fears were justified.
Researchers will be able to make such links in a case where consent to research has been given, she said. Where a research ethics committee (REC) has approved research on 鈥渞emnant鈥� tissue samples without the need for consent, the researcher would not be able to identify the patient. However subject to this restriction, the patient鈥檚 record and the tissue sample could still be linked if further information can be gleaned from the records.
On the question of getting research results back to the patient, RECs would be able to consider what arrangements were appropriate in each case. They would generally be able to tell whether any information significant to individuals was likely to come to light during the research, she said. In this case, she would expect RECs to insist on prior consent. The Home Office guideline is for doctors and others responsible for a patient鈥檚 medical care to be given information from research involving that patient鈥檚 tissues, unless the patient or the REC requests otherwise. So if significant information unexpectedly surfaces, it should be relayed to the relevant professionals, who are in a position to consider whether and how to tell the patient, the minister said.
Advertisement
I think the Department of Health has been reasonable in an exceedingly delicate matter.
I AM hoping that in the brief time before the expected general election in May 2005, a marine management bill can be squeezed into the parliamentary timetable. A great deal of effort had gone into preparing Conservative MP John Randall鈥檚 private members鈥� bill for marine wildlife areas before a handful of peers disgracefully scuppered it in the House of Lords.
Ben Bradshaw, the incoming fisheries minister, tells me that the government supports the principles contained in the bill, and will consider these alongside the findings of the government鈥檚 review on marine nature conservation and other recently reported reviews. The key issue is to determine the most suitable mechanisms for delivering a comprehensive and targeted approach to marine management.
I see no reason why the government should not get a move on 鈥� the situation demands it.
