More than 2,000 families are taking the NHS to the High Court for removing the body parts of dead patients including children without consent.
A report in the Daily Express newspaper says that the new claim relates to hospitals all over the country and the plaintiffs have rejected an offer of �1,000 per family.
Mervyn Fudge, the solicitor representing 1,500 of the families, told the BBC they would seek compensation and hoped legal action would end their ordeal.
The Department of Health has said that the practice of organ retention without consent no longer occurs and the ban will be reinforced by new legislation before Parliament.
Should the families of donors be compensated?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
 |  All that happens is that the NHS is starved of more funds and therefore can only give a poorer service  |
NO. Why do they need money? What are they being compensated for? It is not the people who make the decisions who are funding the compensation it is the NHS. It is paid for by the tax payers. The people who the "victims" wish to punish are not affected at all. All that happens is that the NHS is starved of more funds and therefore can only give a poorer service making it like that these kinds of problems occur again. What they should be asking for is that the people who made the decisions are brought to account and made to suffer either loss of status and a reduction in their high salaries to match.
CK, UK The families should be compensated. Doctors have to stop acting like they are GOD. For far too long the medical profession has treated patients like children (remember how much of a struggle it used to be to get hold of your medical records?). The attitude of Doctor knows best leads to callous actions like organ harvesting with little regard for the families involved. Until the medical profession is held responsible for its actions scandals like these will go on.
Ian, Newcastle
Sad though it is, the money would be better spent saving people who are still alive.
Roger, UK
These were dreadful mistakes, resulting from the perpetuation in some areas of the NHS, that patients (and their bodies) are things that doctors do things to, rather than it being a partnership of informed choices. Any financial loss, such as a new funeral etc, should be compensated for, but otherwise the parents/ relatives have lost nothing that can reasonably be compensated. In most cases this is an example of purely manufactured grief - some have lost by burying incomplete remains, but nothing financial is involved in that.
Dr R Scott-Watson, Fairfield, UK
Yes they should be compensated, but they should be compensated by the people who made the decision to remove unnecessary organs, and they should also be told where the organs were taken and by whom they were used and for what research so that they feel some good may have come of it all. I believe that the parents have lost a great deal of peace of mind and having a small sum can be a way of helping them out.
Caroline Robinson, Warfield, England
The families initially said they wanted an apology and an explanation. They have got this plus a change in practice and the law. It worries me that money was behind this whole affair all along. I understand that the practice of retaining organs was and is still standard practice on all of the developed world.
Helen Keenan, Wirral England
Families should not be compensated for having children's organs removed but should receive a full apology. I don't see how giving compensation to someone will make any difference to the people involved and is yet another case of compensation culture taking over. You can imagine when one of the people suing gets money and needs and operation and to be told there isn't the money to pay for it because they had to pay compensation out to people, you can see the complaints going in already. Hospitals should be accountable but not in monetary terms unless money is needed to look after someone in the future.
Kevin D, Eastbourne, England
While I accept that the relatives have a major grievance against the NHS and deserve an apology and an investigation, there loss is emotional not financial and should not be compensated with money. Cash compensation should be reserved for people who have incurred financial loss or hardship due to a mistake. Clearly this is not so in this case. We should move away from this phenomenon where every mistake or unhappiness can be ascribed a financial value - it just demeans everything.
A Ali, UK
Although traumatic news for the families involved I think taking money from the NHS is not the answer. The public health system will suffer as a result, perhaps affecting treatment given to sick children and adults of the future. I don't believe the parents of those who have already died would want this to happen. We must try to stem the 'blame culture' taking over, Australia is already becoming like America, lets not let it happen to the UK.
Laura Jackel, Newcastle, Australia Of course they should. As for those here saying "medical advances must be made" they wouldn't be saying that if it was a member of their family that had been affected. Just because the NHS is under pressure cash wise shouldn't preclude them from being sued.
RB, Kings Lynn, Norfolk
It is slightly shocking to find that this still happens in this day and age. But is money an answer to what has happened. I don't think so. I would be wanting to change the system, not deprive it of yet more money. Opt OUT not in of organ donation.
Kieron, Auckland, NZ/UK citizen
I have very personal reasons for sympathising with the families affected by this issue. I cannot, however, understand how taking money out of the NHS will ever compensate them for their distress. The change in the law proposed by the government will, on the other hand ensure that informed consent will become the norm. When that happens, I sincerely hope that parents or relatives of anyone who dies will allow tissue or organ donation for research. That way, the death of their loved ones will gain a purpose - potentially providing cures for other sufferers in the future, just as transplant donors do now.
Fiona, Scotland
No, these families should not be compensated by means of money.An apology and the change in the law should be sufficient. Families of these people should be happy and proud they may have helped or will help someone in the future from pain and suffering. I know this may sound harsh, I just hate to see anything that contributes to any strain on the already struggling Health service.
A.J.Smith, UK
The real question here is 'are these families entitled to compensation?' They have suffered no monetary hardship only metal anguish. How will �1000 - �5000 make their suffering any less? This legal action will not 'end their ordeal' only prolong it. Give them counselling by all means but money will not better their situation.
Joanne, Glasgow
Whilst I appreciate the position of the families involved, I fail to see how any advances in medical science can be made if tissues from the deceased cannot be studied. I also think that these families are wrong in asking for money - what good can this do apart from take resources from an already struggling NHS?
Hayley, Sussex, UK
My daughter died suddenly shortly before her first birthday. When her body was released to the undertaker after a post mortem, it was clear her brain (at least) was missing. I telephoned the hospital concerned to ask for her brain to be reunited with the rest of her body before cremation only to be told "it will have been incinerated along with the rest of the hospital waste." My daughter's brain was not hospital waste and can NEVER be reunited with the rest of her ashes, which I still have. No-one can compensate me for that and no-one has ever offered to.
Katherine Carrington Smith, Nethy Bridge, Scotland
| His organs were removed not for other transplants but for research |
I too became a victim of this negligence in 1990. My son died in hospital after a heart problem. I would have willingly donated his good organs to children that needed them however we were not asked for this. The memories of him in his coffin are still in our minds every day. His organs were removed not for other transplants but for research. I have a letter telling me that it took 18 months to complete his post-mortem and his organs were disposed of sometime later like a piece of garbage - no records were kept off the disposal. What are we meant to think? I have a great time trusting doctors now and 12 years after this incident both my wife and myself had to get counselling in Canada to help us deal with the grief all over again.
George McDade, Canada My overwhelming feeling is that charging the NHS thousands of pounds will neither benefit it's ability to provide healthcare nor compensate the families of the deceased. As ever, the only group who really benefit are the lawyers.
Paul Harris, Redditch
I expect medical researchers to have access to body parts where this may help improve medical services in the long term. I believe it is appropriate to ask relatives, but if this were not done due to oversight I would not be upset. When my wife recently died, I was asked if I had any objection to an autopsy and was surprised to be asked. Some four hours after she had died I received a call asking for permission for her cornea to be harvested for transplant. My family and I were pleased that this was done as it was not uppermost in our minds at that time. I take the view that my body is a temporary home which will be recycled one way or another. I would like it to be to the direct benefit of mankind if at all possible.
Chris Morris, Trelex, Switzerland
| Medical research is totally impossible without tissue to study |
I'm a Cancer researcher at a major university. As a result of the backlash from the Alder Hay scandal we are now virtually unable to get any human tissue (In my case tumours removed during surgery) as the pathologists are worried about litigation. This has led to the suspension of a promising cancer study. Medical research is totally impossible without tissue to study.
Peter, UK I believe the families should be compensated. It is all very well to argue that the NHS is cash strapped but that is the fault of our government. These people all pay for the NHS and should be entitled to what they pay for. It is a service just like any other. If somebody in a suit made the wrong decision, then like any other service, it is up to them to put the situation right. If this means financial refunds in addition to reform, so be it. If it means that a few NHS executives have to go without new cars this year, tough.
Brendan MacLean, Birmingham, UK
What good can possibly come from taking money from an under resourced NHS to give to people with a perceived grievance? Surely all we can expect is that lessons have been learned and that these events will never be repeated. After all, no one suggests that there was any malice, or gain for anyone, in this wrong and no longer occurring practice.
Ron Dyett, Beds., England
| No amount of money can compensate for the blatant disregard for the feelings of those who lost loved ones |
The hospital staff who were responsible for this should be sacked without any doubt - they crossed the line. No amount of money can compensate for the blatant disregard for the feelings of those who lost loved ones. �1,000 is an insult - any amount of money is an insult. Not sure what the answer is regarding money - Whatever the amount it should come from the staff's pocket and paid direct to charities.
Joan, Scotland I think it is disgusting that doctors take it upon themselves to rip people of their organs without consent. Taking organs from the body of someone who is dead without consent is just as bad as taking them from someone who is alive.
Rose Baverstock, High Wycombe
No, the families should not be compensated. They claim it is about proving a point, not money, but everyone involved has acknowledged it was wrong. They are just grabbing what they can get from a cash-strapped NHS.
Ian, Southampton, UK
| These claims will inevitably have an impact on patient care |
As a parent I did have a lot of sympathy with the families concerned. They managed to achieve an inquiry into the situation and changes in medical practice and the law. However, I find it saddening that they cannot be satisfied with these achievements and are now arguing over how much money an already cash-starved NHS should be paying out to them. These claims will inevitably have an impact on patient care. The families' argument that they were campaigning for a change in the law so other parents would not suffer as they had now looks much less credible.
Suzanne B, UK As previously stated any money paid out in compensation will directly and negatively impact on the NHS. Once again the lawyers are degrading our society by insisting every wrong has a measurable financial recompense.
Dave Robinson, Aberdeen
It is a desperately sad time for these families, but I wish that they could be helped to see that this protracted legal battle is in no-one's interest. Money can never truly compensate for their loss; the court case serves merely to prolong the pain, and any money ultimately handed over by the NHS could be used to save other lives.
John, UK
| The NHS would be sent a clear message to respect patient rights |
Yes without question. I would like the see the families awarded compensation.... I would then hope that they would donate the payouts to aid medical charities. Then the NHS would be sent a clear message to respect patient rights but at the same time any money paid wouldn't leave medical care.
Lee B, Eastbourne, UK What about the research side? Alzheimer's disease is a disease of old age. How then can it be researched and studied if post mortem brain tissue is not donated both from old and young people? Unfortunately, young tissue is needed as well, to compare what happens in this horrible disease as we get older, and perhaps lead to treatments or, dare I say, prevention.
Jane, Edinburgh
No-one is suggesting for one moment that what happened was not wrong. This now seems to be universally accepted and the government is addressing the issue via legislation. However, I fail to see what good can come from spending millions of taxpayers' money on compensating these families. It will not bring back their loved ones or change what has happened but the NHS will have to find the compensation from already hard pressed budgets and the service to the public will suffer further.
Rachel, UK
While I feel these families should have been consulted (I can't see too many of them having objections when it was explained that it was to save another life) I don't really agree with people suing the NHS. They are under resourced and under funded as it is and every legal case is one more nail in the coffin of the NHS.
Richie Bisset, Edinburgh, UK
| How dare these people imply this? I'm furious! |
How dare these people imply this? I'm furious! Everyone is aware of donor cards, so if they wish to have one, they go to a clinic and ask for one. I do not carry one; I wish for my family to grieve for me intact and it is every human's right to die as they wish. I do however, give blood and donate money to charities regularly including Cancer Research and Breast cancer charities among a few.
Donna, London, UK
I disagree with presumed consent and will opt out of the system when it is introduced. The fact that some people suffer from severe illness and disease does not override the rights of grieving relatives not to be harassed and bullied by hospital staff at such a difficult time. What happens to me once I'm dead will be decided by my husband and family. It will be THEIR choice, depending on how they feel at the time.
Debbie, England
| The BMA are more than right to want to change the system |
I for one would be more than happy for my organs, or those of a loved one to be used in the event of death. It's selfish beyond belief to deny others the chance of life in this way and the BMA are more than right to want to change the system.
Paul, Glasgow, Scotland
I want to be paid for my organs. Why cannot I auction my own organs and give the money to my children? This would encourage organ donation far better than assuming people want to donate. Why are people bothered when organs are taken after death anyway? It is just selfish pride! The person cannot use them so why no give someone else the gift of life. I am a card carrying donor because at the end of the day if I needed an organ, I would hope there would be one available. People who disagree are being selfish and obviously don't care about anyone else.
Stephen, UK
| I don't think an opt-out system is fair or respectful of a person's right to determine what is done with their own body after death |
Even though I support organ donation I don't think an opt-out system is fair or respectful of a person's right to determine what is done with their own body after death. However I do think the current opt in system needs changing, firstly so that if someone registers as an organ donor their next of kin does not have the right to counter their wishes, and two, the system should be better publicised.
Colin Wright, UK
I am fundamentally against the idea that my organs could become someone else's property 'by proxy' on or around my death, however I may be convinced otherwise.
CR, St Albans, UK
I applied for a donor card and emailed my close family at the same time using the online form. The email was sent, which kind of worried my parents about why I was doing this now. The donor card has still not turned up - more than eight weeks later. I disagree with opt-out, but cards should be far more readily available.
Nick B, Surbiton UK
I certainly do not agree. The present system is abused by the medical fraternity and this would just make it easier for these people to remove organs wholesale. I do not carry a card, as is my right, and I do not intend to. This is just the same as filling in forms on line and missing the little box which states "please tick here if you do not wish...".
RB, Kings Lynn, Norfolk
It is wasteful and cruel to continue with the 'opt in' system. With the 'opt out' system, those who do not wish to donate do not have to; it reduces the strain on NHS (and ultimately the taxpayer) as a transplant operation & yearly drugs is substantially cheaper than dialysis; and most importantly it relieves someone's loved one from such a terrible, painful and life limiting illness. If it was your mother, daughter, father, son or sibling, what would do to help them?
David McVeigh, Belfast, N Ireland
| How do all those people learn to be doctors and develop their excellent skills unless they can study the 'real' thing? |
It always interests me that there is never any reference to donation of remains for medical research. How do all those people learn to be doctors and develop their excellent skills unless they can study the 'real' thing? My husband and I both made arrangements for donation of our remains for medical research whilst in our early twenties and on my husband's death at a young age both the surgeon and the students who had the opportunity to learn valuable information were most grateful.
Alison, Halifax, UK The problem is some people want to donate their organs, but their relatives are against it. A friend always carries his card in his wallet, however he is worried that if anything should happen and he does not have his wallet (after a mugging say) his parents will not give consent.
Carolyn, England
I am a kidney dialysis patient and would love a transplant. All my colleagues I talk to say they would willingly donate an organ but only about 10% of them have actually done anything about it. I am in favour of an opt out system.
Colin Campbell, Glasgow
Organs belong to the deceased and should not be used without the express permission of the deceased or his/her family. A needy person, no matter how needy, does not have a "right" to a donor organ.
Jon Davis, USA
If my family has no rights over my body while I am alive, what reason (legal or ethical) should give them any rights once I am gone? When I die, my family will be sad. So why not prevent the same happening to another family? Opting out has to be the way forward.
Iain, Southampton, UK
I fear that doctors may not try hard enough to revive an apparently hopeless patient and see them merely as a supply of organs. For that reason I disagree with the presumed consent. I do NOT carry an organ donor card and am content that this means they must ask my relatives. My relatives know very well that if the case is truly hopeless then I would be happy to be a donor. But I cannot trust doctors or authorities to make that decision because I believe that they simply don't care enough.
Steve Mills, Nottingham, UK No. Let's make sure that we come up with a better means of helping ill people than this. I find the whole idea of organ transplants horrific. I have made it clear that I would never want to receive a transplant. When all resources are focused on transplants what alternatives are being looked at?
Martha, London
I totally agree that organ donation should be an opt out rather than an opt in. I find it astonishing that even though I am on the organ donor register the consent of my next of kin still needs to be obtained. If I can vote why cannot I decide what I would like to happen when I am dead.
Susan James, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
When celebrity Alcoholics can seemingly receive transplants at the drop of a hat it is difficult to believe there is a real shortage of organs.
Pete, London UK
I agree we should have an opt out register. With so many people ignorant about organ donation and the chronic shortage of donor organs I believe the law should be changed.
Nick Horne, Bristol
| I feel very strongly about my organs being used and am lucky enough to have a family that would carry it out |
Personally I agree with these plans. I feel very strongly about my organs being used and am lucky enough to have a family that would carry it out. Currently it is not our choice what happens to us and I don't think anyone should have the right to go against what you state because you can't insist on it yourself.
Laura Keates, Reading My only problem is the potential for the abuse of the system if there is really no check on what is going on.
Nigel, Worcester Park UK
If scientific research and ethics allowed certain operations to be performed there would be a reduced need for organ donation. New organs, and more urgently needed blood, could be grown and made in laboratories and have no rejection from the recipient's body.
Phill C, Sheffield, UK
Speaking as someone who's brother's life was saved by transplant surgery, I definitely feel there should be a change. I carry a donor card but worry that, should I have an accident leaving me braid dead or fatally wounded, would I actually have the card on me or would it be found too late amongst my belongings?
Des, Wales
I believe that you should have to opt out of the system if you do not want your organs being used. This would allow much more access to organs and also allow those with strong religious beliefs to ensure that their organs will not be used.
Susan, Glasgow
| This should be a question tackled when you register with a GP |
Although I appreciate the problem presuming consent is not the answer. This should be a question tackled when you register with a GP and should be part of the standard practice questionnaire with the practice nurse who has time to discuss in detail the options. This will remove confusion but increase the number of people made aware of how they can help others.
John, Nottingham, UK The Govt has trained the doctors and nurses to deal with the increase in organ transplant; all that is missing is the organs. There is still consultation with the family of the donor to ensure that they are happy with the donation so where is the problem. It saves lives, money and heartache for all concerned
Vince, Henley on Thames
As the husband of a renal patient waiting for a kidney transplant, I fully support a change in the legislation. Personally I find it extremely selfish of people to take their organs to the grave when they could be used to improve the lives of so many people. Day to day life waiting for a transplant is not easy and there are many complications. My wife is faced with a 4-year average wait, so anything that could reduce this would be more than welcome.
Karl Scholz, West Bufleet, UK
Presumed consent is only reasonable if everybody has a clear and easy way of saying no. It is essential that the decision about allowing organs to be used remains in the hands of the people who are donating and is not given over to a professional group among whom arrogance and emotional callousness are not completely unknown.
Peter Myatt, Aarhus, Denmark I agree with those in favour of presumed consent. Most people seem to be happy for their organs to be used; however through apathy they don't carry a card. Therefore to put the onus for carrying cards on those who feel strongly that they don't want to donate their organs seems the most sensible way to proceed - if what you want to achieve is increasing the number of available organs.
Ed, Hertford, UK
The rules should stay absolutely as they are. If a person wishes to make their organs available for use after their death they will undoubtedly have informed their family of their intentions and these should be respected.
Jon, Swansea, Wales, UK
| I carry a donor card but vigorously object to the proposed legislation |
If someone wants to carry an organ donor card it isn't exactly difficult to get one. If someone can't be bothered to pick up a card from a hospital, or tick the box on their driving license, or let their relatives know their wishes etc, then one has to ask just how much they support the idea. I carry a donor card but vigorously object to the proposed legislation, and if it is introduced I will carry an opt-out card as a protest against it.
Jonny, England The thing that really strikes me about this is the fact they are not considering anyone's religious values in this. I am Jewish (but not religious) and in Jewish law it is completely forbidden to remove organs. If doctors decide to just take organs without consent they will have a big religious battle on their hands and considering the political correctness of today's government I cant see that being supported.
Rabs, London UK
Presumed consent is the most sensible suggestion I've heard in ages. My organs or any other bits come to that, aren't much use to me when I'm dead, so why shouldn't someone else benefit? I would be quite happy for whatever's left to be used for research, or turned into glue or whatever - just don't waste it!
Andy Watson, Fleetwood, Lance
| If you're willing to receive organs, you should be willing to donate organs |
If you're willing to receive organs, you should be willing to donate organs. The body is just a container for whatever is inside. So by all means presume you can have my wrapper if somebody you love is dying!
Paul Madley, Manchester, UK
I do not agree with the concept of presumed consent. It would mean that those who would not wish their organs to be harvested would have always to carry some kind of document to that effect. Imagine the horror of turning up to find a loved one's organs had been removed just because they were not carrying that disclaimer.
Perhaps a way round this would be, should Identity cards come into force, that a person's consent or otherwise could be programmed into that card and hospitals/GPs could access the database for that information should a patient die.
Mrs V Jamieson, London
Having witnessed the death of my father first hand, I think that having a "presumed consent" method would be a good idea. Grieving relatives certainly don't want to be asked the question after losing a loved one. At the end of the day, we all would hope that there is a supply of organs ready for use, if you are in a position where a transplant is the only way of extending your life span. Asking for consent only adds a burden to all concerned.
Jason, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Many years ago, there was a scare story that organs were removed whilst the donor still had a chance to live. I don't believe that the donation program has ever recovered from that. I fall into the category of wanting to donate, but because I am unsure, I do nothing. Therefore, changing the system so people have to opt out is a good thing. Only a few will bother to opt out, meaning an increase in organs available.
Chris Cooper, Manchester, UK
It's all very well to say they need body parts but it is the property of the owner (if alive) or their relatives. What if religious convictions prevent this? Consent should still be needed even if it doesn't make a lot of sense to us. Speaking personally I carry a donor card should I die, and whatever's left gets cremated
Moo, London, UK
I am fully in favour of presumed consent. I have always carried a donor card and so have my children, but I know that emotions can take over following a tragedy, bringing a strong desire to protect the dead person at any cost. Donating organs is one way of helping a loved on to live on.
Catherine Dyer, Dorchester UK
People are more likely to react to something they object to than something they agree to. It is human nature. Really deep down, I think that we should be able to use anyone's organs as once you are dead that's it, they will either rot or help someone. But you can not do that so I think that the law should be changed round.
! Nina Stephenson, UK
| Those not on the organ register should never be able to receive one. |
Those not on the organ register should never be able to receive one. Ever. Only by showing people dying on TV because they were not on the register will people realize that it really is a matter of life and death, and not something to think about when you need one. It would be a brutal and inhumane method of educating people. But its no worse than letting someone die because you are not prepared to give your organs when you are dead and don't need them any more.
Graham, England
Yes, Most people are happy to donate organs and only because of apathy don't carry a card. Opt out rather than Opt in makes far more sense.
Chris, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
