Should the Dunne Inquiry into the organ retention controversy be put on a statutory basis?

# 38

Posted: 08/02/2008 01:03

Please allow me to explain that organ retention had nothing to do with organ transplants. The organs taken from the dead were no use for transplants. Organs for transplants have to be taken and put into the sick patient within hours.
The Dunne inquiry did an excellent job. The problem was that the government decided to
take Ann Dunnes findings and lock them away in storage. The Dunne inquiry is the only inquiry
in the history of the state to be closed down before
it concluded it's findings. What is Harney hiding?
With regards to the comments made by Mr Williams. It is a natural instinct in mothers and
families to protect their loved ones and this does
not end when their child or love one dies. What these people in the medical profession did to the dead is unforgivable.
I dont believe we should have another inquiry,
we had one already. Why not make all the information from ann dunnes inquiry public?
The parents for justice group have been funded by
the government for years. In my opinion, this would be better spent on the patients who are in need of treatment. The dead don't need money.

# 37

Posted: 17/04/2007 22:26

Rick, I agree with you fully.
In order to remove an organ you must do it as fast as possible after death if it to be used for transplant purposes.
The loss of a child is so emotionally charged and difficult for any parent to deal with and there is no way in this earthly world parents can cope with a decision like that within minutes/hours of the death of a child.
To give parents such information is counter productive, I feel and adds an extra burden on them at a time when they cannot possibly make a decision like that.

# 36

Posted: 09/03/2007 16:06

This is a very sensitive area regarding pathological practices which occured 25+ years ago.I suppose it was a time when doctors 'knew best' and the practice at the time was not to get consent from parents regarding post mortems/organ retention etc.The Dunne enquiry has already established that there was no profit making from this practice and young sick babies at the time benefited from pituitary hormones donated(nowadays I think they are made synthetically).
The practice nowadays of course is completely different.Doctors are required to get informed consent.Personally,I am not sure if giving parents details of pathological procedure is a superior system.
I doubt the wisdom of paying barristers 2k+ per day to investigate this practice which happened so long ago.I'm sure most of the doctors are retired or dead and notes are probably erratic.Maybe,a Dail Commitee may do some good.
I agree that something good could come out of this-maybe a state of the art play area in the new Childrens Hospital which will benefit future generations and perhaps help bereaved parents with this

# 35

Posted: 07/03/2007 15:40

Can someone tell me what is the difference between a statutory and non-statutory enquiry? What would a statutory enquiry achieve that a non-statutory one won't?

# 34

Posted: 07/03/2007 11:25

"thats just it", is not an acceptable response for any parent.

As regards your baabies who dies, I would say contact the maternity hospital in question and they most certainly were little beings - baptsim or other ceremonies notwithstanding. You are entitled to all records concernign them. Also contact the Irish Stillbirth Dnd Neonatal Death (ISANDS) as they can also provide information and Support regarding your loss.

For the people who are buried every day of the week without all their organs, unless there is a criminal or court coroner enquiry involved (autopsy), then consent MUST be sought either from them prior to their death or from their next of kin.
The fact that it is happening without consent does not make it any less wrong.

# 33

Posted: 06/03/2007 21:40

No, Anonymous, nothing can make up for the way it was done but thats just it. Nothing will undo the damage so a Statutory Inquiry will not do it either.

As it happens, I have lost 2 children and a sister and have no idea where any of them ended up.
2 of them were full term babies who lived for a number of hours but died before baptism so were not even regarded as 'beings' in their own right.

The focus on organs doesn't do it for me. I understand the emotions involved but an organ is an organ.
People are buried every day of the week without all their organs.

# 32

Posted: 05/03/2007 10:34

Ann, I take it you are not a parent involved. Nothing you have said justfies the sickening acts done.

Nobody in a state of total grief will give permission to have their childrens organs used or taken.
So does that excuse, organs being taken without permission?
Of course not. Nothing does.

# 31

Posted: 02/03/2007 19:39

What would a statutory enquiry do?
Nothing but cost money as far as I can see.
It is a very emotive issue but realistically how do people think the medical profession advances?
Nobody takes organs from anyone for the sake of it. When you are dead you are dead.
Nobody in a state of total grief will give permission to have their childrens organs used or taken. Nobody will because they are too consumed by their loss and too traumatised.
Before you all jump down my neck, my own Father donated his body to medical research.
I can fully understand how shocking it is to find out that your children's organs have been taken without your knowledge but it was not done to the detriment of any living person.
It has become a focus point for the grieving but I personally think the whole thing has been taken totally out of context.

# 30

Posted: 01/03/2007 16:54

How quickly people forget when it is not one of their own children who has been involved in the organ retention scandal. Help our cause to live on especially in this an election year
a parent

# 29

Posted: 24/01/2006 00:09

refering to john willson comments
thank god iam not married to him he is like another hitler he is cold and has no nature, god help his family. or is he one of those doctors that striped thses children of there organs. and for the anonymous 23/8/04 i agreed with that person best of luck to the 3 mothers that are fighting for their rights and their children and the photos were beautful girls bring down this goverment if ye have to. and for harney she is a disaster in health. she would want to learn respect for people before the next election or she will be out on her head. good luck girls

# 28

Posted: 30/08/2004 09:15

And if it had been put on a staturary footing sooner this would not have happened. I would not call a cent of this, waste, if it prevetns it ever happening again.

# 27

Posted: 29/08/2004 21:26

Is it not somewhat perverse that the inquiry into the retention of organs has already cost twice what the government, through the Health Research Board, makes available for medical research each year? A statutory enquiry would just cost more more money. I support John Williams points.

# 26

Posted: 28/08/2004 17:05

I agree completely with john williams.Enough of our taxpayers money has been wasted already.Why now have a statutory enquiry?The parents say they want the general public to know the truth,but we've been hearing about this scandal constantly over the last few years,we know wrong has been committed and after all this media coverage its unlikely to occur again, isn't that enough,why drag it out more?a lot of postings speak about the grief they experienced when their child died,but they cannot think about the organ retention without their feelings of grief clouding their judgement.Both the death and the organ retentions were horrible acts but many of the messages don't seem to be able to seperate the two from each other,whereas of course they are completely seperate.These strong feelings of grief over the deaths of the babies has in turn caused them to feel unreasonably strongly about the organ retentions.

# 25

Posted: 26/08/2004 11:19

I don't know how you cold say that parentrs are sensationalizing this. Were organs taken from your dead childs' body and left in glass jars in pathology labs for years? There is a awful lot in the Dunne enquiry that the public will never know until it's put on a statutary footing.

And just for the record. There is a difference between an organ and gland. They thyroid, pituatary and pancreas are glands, they produce hormones.
The heart lungs and liver are organs, they do not produce hormones.

# 24

Posted: 25/08/2004 13:06

No i dont think there should be a statutory inquiry.I think the parents for justice are sensationalising this issue. All of this information was already released to the Dunne Inquiry by the Health Boards but in my opinion, this group have dragged the same issue up again.The matter of organs being retained has already been answered,however there is now the question of Pituitary GLAND to confuse people into again asking was the pituitary gland retained?.Gland or Organ its the same thing.I think that this group are putting ther members through unnecessary grief.The media have also hyped up the matter driving people crazy over issues that have already been answered.

# 23

Posted: 24/08/2004 08:32

I am of the same opinion as Yvonne (oconnory) above however I respect every persons right to express an opinion.
Different people respond in different ways to different tragedies and just because one person may have no difficulty with the retention of a loved one's organs, this can not in any way take away from the heartache suffered by another in similar circumstances.
People who are not directly involved in this issue will not be aware of certain behaviour and atitudes of certain institutions involved which can only be described as shocking. As long as the Dunne Inquiry remains on a non-statutory footing, people will never know. As most people directly involved will know, the practice of retaining organs without consent is merely the tip of the iceberg. The manner in which some families have been treated by institutions has been dispicable and I can assure you that the majority of people posting on this issue here, regardless of opinion, would be sickened to learn of the behaviours and atitudes of some hospitals.
With some exceptions the reaction to this whole controversy has been restrained. The idea, as expressed by some, that we should forgive, forget and move on, may indeed be good counsel and sound therapy, however, in doing so we are merely applying a smack on the wrist to the state and therefore not holding it accountable. The history of cover-ups and corruption in this state is enough evidence to warrant an Inquiry giving complete and total disclosure on this matter. Until that is received, most of the families devastated by the retention of a loved one's organs will continue to wonder and question and mistrust, making forgiveness and forgetting and moving on a very tall order indeed.

# 22

Posted: 24/08/2004 08:25

Mesage to John Williams!!! Can you imagine being 5 years old and expecting your mother to bring home a new baby, but she doesnt as the baby was stillborn. Then find out 20 years later that they have removed some of the organs without permission God only knows what other organs they have removed.

# 21

Posted: 24/08/2004 08:14

Yes, I think John Williams\' comments are heartless and callous. Childrens dead bosies were retuend to their parents as empty shells which you would know if you listened to the news. There were more than pituatary glands removed. There were other organs and glands - you can list these for yourself if you bais knowledge of biology. How can you say it is nonsense and how can you be so dismissive of this. Childrens body-parts were kepts in jars in pathology labs for years. Hospitals did profit from the sale of glands. These are facts regardless of whether you choose to face them or not.

# 20

Posted: 23/08/2004 23:11

my god give these 3 ladies the strengh to go on ye are the only people that stood up for yer kids and the photos were beautiful it must be hard for ye to see there photo on national papers. and if john williams went through what these famailies went through it would open his eyes if some one stole a thing from him would he think the same way. is the minister hiding some thing big

# 19

Posted: 23/08/2004 23:01

reply to the comments it just showed that how ignored they are if there lost a child and go through what these parents went through I have fallowed this story from day one and if the minister gave this inquiry a full statuaryy powers it would be nearly finished by now and it would have not costed as much the minister has no one to blame only him self.medical got pocket money for this is that fare to thoses laides so girls best of luck and it is time for the people of this country to wake up and especial the comments above john williams.
he must be a chicken.

# 18

Posted: 23/08/2004 20:46

Some posters have accused me of being callous and heartless. I am neither. The Dunne inquiry has already cost the taxpayers 15 million euro. If were to be set up as a statutory inquiry it would cost hundreds of millions. Instead this money should go, not into barristers pockets, but to the Crumlin Hosptal for Sick Children. This is the rational thing to do. It is absolutly irrational and untrue to talk about a child being 'an empty shell' when a pitutory gland is the size of a pea;to talk about the child 'having suffered enough' when the child is dead; to talk about organs being in plastic buckets and jam jars for years. Enough of this nonsense. The hospital authorities and the medical personnel involved should have asked for permission to retain organs. Everyone, including the hospitals, admits this. To waste hundreds of millions on an enquiry would be a greater wrong than the original organ retention. In the compensation culture we have developed in Ireland no opportunity is missed to get on the claims bandwagon.

# 17

Posted: 23/08/2004 11:34

Yes, it was a reflection of the culture of the time, as was the physical abuse of children in state care. This does noty make it right. NOTHING WILL BE DONE UNTIL PEOPLE (NAMELY THE PARENTS IN THIS CASE) STAND UP AND BE HEARD.

# 16

Posted: 23/08/2004 11:23

no-one could imagine the suffering
and torment of parents after losing a child, they have everyright to be angry, They have to cry out, there is a strange
attitude towards children in this country, we saw it with the commissions on child abuse, the
blood scandal, what is it about us Irish people, do anything at us and we'll take it lying down, not anyone people are now more educated
now, they are not taking it anymore. We have been softies but
we are beginning to harden up to the lot of them, Keep fighting for
justice.

# 15

Posted: 23/08/2004 08:19

I DON\'T KNOW HOW SOME OF THESE POSTERS COULD BE SO INSENSITIVE not to mention so wrong as to compare a lost limb or apendix to the pituatary gland of a child. The fact is, when you have your appendix removed, it is done, generally as a result of appendicitis. If there is a post mortem, the hospital is bound to request consent of a next of kin.
What happened here was that, without consent, organs, which were neither damaged or diseased, were removed from babies and in my opinion sold by hospitals to commercial companies for profit.
I think some of you are forgetting that the dead, whether babies or adults, merit a certain level of dignity and respect. Harvesting their organs for commercial gain, or to be kept in jars for years, withuout consent of the next of kin, does not accord them the respect they are due.

# 14

Posted: 23/08/2004 08:05

The retention of organs without next of kin consent, be they adult or child, is wrong and I don't hear anyone contesting this so what would a statutory inquiry achieve? All concerned accept that this was unacceptable behaviour but it was a reflection of the culture of the time. Organ retention was not unique to Ireland and British hospitals also carried out this practice but no statutory inquiry has taken place. What is the motivation behind the call for a statutory inquiry? What will be achieved? One can't help wondering if the motivation for an inquiry is fuelled by the prospect of comensation.

# 13

Posted: 21/08/2004 13:00

I'm appalled at the bitter attitude of "anonymous", lashing out at both the catholic church and "medical professionals sitting on their thrones with superstar wages".firstly,there is no evidence that the catholic church played any direct role in the organ retention scandal; secondly,medical professionals work extremely long and difficult hours,many whom don't actually earn these "superstar wages"!While i agree that a small number of these health care professionals made a mistake in not looking for consent from the parents, i also think they honestly meant no harm , in fact they believed,albeit wrongly, that they were acting for the greater good.

# 12

Posted: 20/08/2004 21:45

there is something rotten about
the way these hospitals went about
the business of removing organs
without permission of the parents.
Most of these hospitals are run by the Catholic Church, who are quick
to condemn everything and anything
when it suits them. All this has
a deeper meaning, parents are standingup to the medical profession who have been for long enough on their thrones getting
superstars wages, beliving we the public are hardly fit to share
the same space as them never mind
telling them what they are going
to do to their childrens bodies.
Its an attitude problem, the health service is in a shambles
its time for people to get up and
fight back. What the parents want is a bit of respect. God know what they suffered before their children died, children who may have had to endure harsh treatment
for maybe years who knows everyone's story may be different.
This may stope the medical profession riding rough shod over
peole in the future.

# 11

Posted: 20/08/2004 20:33

There is a lot of pain coming through in these postings. I agree with the facts as John Williams sets them out - there is little dispute. The only people a full-blown Inquiry will help are the barristers. Consent should have been asked for and obtained. No question. Many grieving parents, despite the pain of their loss, would undoubtedly have consented, out of love. That the medical establishment didn't think it worth while asking for this consent is indeed scandalous, but alas it is scandalously insensitive and stupid, rather than criminal or corrupt behaviour. As a parent, I truly feel for all the grieving parents, but would ask you to consider whether this will help you towards healing and closure or simply serve to open old wounds. A million tears cried for a million years will never bring back your loved ones. Try to forgive and live again.

# 10

Posted: 20/08/2004 18:19

John Williams is correct. Tissue and organs are routinely retained after autopsy for further investigsation and it would not be possible to replace them, nor practicable, in order that relatives may have a funeral as soon as possible. Isn't it better that medical science and knowledge be advanced for the benefit of mankind than whole bodies being fed to the worms. Where will it stop, will people start complaining when they are not offered their appendix (or whatever) back after removal?
The sore point here is that money changed hands and will probably be resolved by monetary compensation being awarded. The whole matter should be dropped immediately as it is of no benefit to anyone.

# 9

Posted: 20/08/2004 16:33

This is a very emotive issue and it is very easy for us to think about "tiny, defenceless children" and weep. However, these children were dead (as were the adults whose organs were removed), and none of them suffered from having a post mortem. Removing their organs without permission was clearly wrong, however it was done by medical staff in the best interest of others who were suffering - by providing pituitary glands to companies that produced growth hormones these doctors allowed many children in Ireland to be treated for dwarfism and have a vastly improved quality of life.

Kevin Myers summarised this very well in today's Irish Times:
"Those who lose limbs through surgery or an accident don't ask to have the amputated part put aside, to be kept until that happy day when they can all be finally reunited in flame or clay. No indeed. Moreover, hospitals dispose of inner organs they remove; they do not run a reunion service for tonsils and wombs and other pieces that misbehave and are therefore removed, to be kept in cold storage until the rest of the body is ready to follow them.

The State should never have indulged the emotional misjudgments of distraught parents of dead children by calling the Dunne inquiry into unauthorised tissue extraction from dead children, upon which €15 million has already been needlessly squandered. Anne Dunne SC is no doubt a splendid barrister, but what can she discover? What we already know - that matter was secretly removed from infantile cadavers. This should not have happened; indeed, it was very wrong that it happened. But it did, and that's that...

The body parts of a dead child are as meaningless as the body parts of a living person, and it is fetishising what is no more than lifeless tissue to pretend that it might properly have some special emotional and moral value to the parents, deserving of the respect and ceremony of a human corpse."

# 8

Posted: 20/08/2004 10:56

JohnWilliams, how could you be so hearless and callous. How would you feel if it was your tiny denceless child that had their organs taken out and kept in a jar for years or sold for the profit of a pharmaceutical company. Have you no sense of respect for the dead or their dignity. The parents in this enquiry have been thru enough without your comments adding to their heartbreak.
Ths should be put ona statutory basis immediately. This should never be allowed to happen again.

# 7

Posted: 20/08/2004 09:52

People who have lost a child
have suffered enough without
finding out the childs organs
have been removed without their
permission it is no better that the abortion clinics selling the
aborted childs organs. Of course
there was commerical gain,
look at the cost of treatments.
I am sure the hospitals did not give the growth hormone treatment
out free. And we in this country have the cheek to say we will not
allow stem cell research in this
holy little country, when it is
quite obvious from this organ retention, there is little regard
for the suffering of human beings
living or dead.

# 6

Posted: 20/08/2004 09:22

I am very upset with the attitude of John Williams. I am no phoney and neither is this scandal. There can be no comparison made between "organ donation" and "organ retention". I am a parent of a child whose organs were retained by a maternity hospital. I am also an organ donor card holder. I gave birth to a stillborn baby at 26 weeks of pregnancy.I was asked to consent to a post mortem. My gut reaction was to say no as my baby daughter had already suffered enough. I agreed because I was told that it may reveal a condition which I might need to be aware of in subsequent pregnancies.I was never asked to donate organs for research or for any other purposes. Neither was I told at the time that the baby that was returned to me for burial was practically an empty shell.That is the difference between the donation and retention - informed consent. I do not know if I would have consented but I was not given the choice. I consider what happened to me as 'organ theft'. No doctor has the right to act as God and make decisions for family members. It is not permitted when a person is alive and nor should it be permitted when they are dead. My daughter deserved to be treated with respect. She was not. She was kept in a plastic bucket for years. What purpose did that serve, educational or otherwise? I wonder if one of Mr. Williams relatives had their grave broken into and organs removed would he still be of the same opinion?

# 5

Posted: 20/08/2004 08:54

I agree completely with John Williams. This is an emotive issue for the parents affected but the issues seem clear and I fail to see how any inquiry can assist them in their grief. It was insensitive of the hospitals concerned but what exactly are we supposed to be inquiring into? What is being gained by anyone? It seems to me that it can only be prolonging parent's grief and in the end, the missing organs do not make the child any less special or unfortunately, any less dead.

# 4

Posted: 20/08/2004 07:14

NO. What is the big deal about taking organs from a deceased person? Within a few weeks these organs would have decomposed anyway but by having them re-used for their valuable hormones, other sick people have a chance for a normal life.
We are bombarded by the tabloid press and their TV equivalents with pictures of children and their distraught parents appealing for organ donors to come forward for this or that problem.
The only difference is, that the hospitals in the centre of this phoney controversy did not request permission to re-use organs. They should have. There is no need for any enquiry. The Dept of Health should immediately bring in legislation to put organ donation on a statutory basis with an opt out clause for those people who do not wish to have their organs put to good use after they die.

# 3

Posted: 20/08/2004 00:50

I know I voted yes and I feel sorry for the parents. But what is the point. Come September we will have a new health minister from the same ****-up government. Nothing will change

# 2

Posted: 19/08/2004 13:39

I don't think making it statutory will make any real difference to the families effected

# 1

Posted: 19/08/2004 09:05

If its not statutory its not going to make any difference, especially not to the parents who now know their little ones bodies had organs taken. It should be made statutory immediately.