This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Medical Law Notes

Organ Donation Notes

Updated Organ Donation Notes

Medical Law Notes

Medical Law

Approximately 1067 pages

Medical Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB medical law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Medical Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through forty-eight LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Medical Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

HTA 2004

  • Coverage

  • Part I – applies to storage & use of material for particular purposes only

  • doesn’t apply to removal of human material, sperm, eggs, embryos, coroner’s duties etc

  • Things lawfully done to certain human material

  1. Storage & use of whole body

  2. Removal, storage, use of human material from deceased

  3. Storage, use of human material from the living

  • Need consent + act done for a Schedule 1 Purpose

  • Consent

  • To storage or use for a particular purpose only (unless for research – consenting once is sufficient)

  • Must be positive

  • Who can consent

  1. Competent adults (s3)

  2. Incompetent adults – consent can be deemed

  1. in best interests (schedule 1 purpose only)

  2. clinical trials

  3. research

  1. Deceased adults

  1. own views pre-death

  2. appointed rep

  3. person in closest qualifying relationship

  1. Children (s2)

  • No definition of “appropriate consent”

  • Schedule I purposes (2 parts = 12 purposes)

  • Criminal offences

  1. Failure to obtain appropriate consent for storage/use of whole body or bodily material or removal, storage, use of human material (s5 HTA)

  • Max sentence – 3 years

  • Defence – reasonably believed he had appropriate consent or that consent not required

  1. False representation of consent

  2. Failure to obtain death certificate

  3. Using/storing donation material for improper purposes

  • Defence: reasonably believed he wasn’t dealing w/donated material

  1. Analysis of DNA w/out consent

  • Unless results are for excepted purpose (conduct of prosecutions, nat. security etc)

  • NB:

  1. Consent isn’t defined in the Act

  2. Broad definition of uman material

  3. Questionable distinction b/w bodies of living & dead

  4. Compromise b/w rights based and utilitarian approaches?

  • Should deceased’s views carry any weight?

  • Harris – although person might have some interests in what happens to his body after death, it should carry little weight b/c after death he can’t be harmed. We regularly dispose of body parts and tissue through menstrual bleeding, bowel movement etc. so should be no more concerned about bits of it being taken by docs. The only interests are that body be disposed of in a way posing no health risks, respecting public decency & attaching weight to legitimate interests of deceased

  • Brazier – Harris’ views are driven by cold rationality. Easy to overstate the claims of research. At Alder Hey, vast majority of organs were simply stored. People’s/relatives’ views highest respect b/c just like families live differently, they also grieve differently. Just as we allow people to decide what should be done w/their property through will, should allow them to decide re their bodies. We live in knowledge of death’s inevitability & how we’ll be treated after death affects our welfare in life

  • Harris

  1. No role for consent in organ retention – even where deceased has made a competent prior direction as to disposal of tissue and organs, respect for consent in this context is no more than extension of courtesy. Posthumous interests, if any, aren’t of the type to be protected by consent.

  2. There are no posthumous interests warranting protection of consent on either of 2 theories

  1. Choice – rights securing protection & promotion of liberty/autonomy

  2. Protection – rights serving to further individual’s welfare/well being

By not respecting wishes of someone at a point when they are no longer autonomous, we don’t violate their autonomy. Knowing what deceased wanted is a “powerful steer”, nothing more.

  1. There’s an absurd, if understandable, preoccupation w/reverence & respect post Alder Hey – we don’t feel such emotions towards our organs whilst alive, so why give it such reverence when dead? Inconsistency of views shouldn’t for the basis of legal distinctions

  2. Illusions are fine but state & courts shouldn’t give judicial or official support to them – particularly where it might deprive others of possibility of life saving therapies

  • McGuiness & Brazier: respect for the living = respect for the dead

  1. Law should acknowledge that some of the same considerations requiring respect for integrity of the living demand respect for their wishes about what should happen to their corpse

  2. Values held by deceased in life (esp. religious & conscientious) can’t be simply discarded nor can values of bereaved families

  3. Bodily integrity has high value under the law (Art 8 ECHR, battery etc) and even where no strict harm per se is caused, it’s violated

  4. Balancing exercise of weighing respect for human organism against the good bodily material can do to others isn’t the right way to approach this

  5. Harris’ statements re illusions ignore much of history & culture

  6. Those who argue the dead have no interests fail to appreciate the transition period – it’s not like some switch is pressed and person ceases to matter

  7. Although often attacked as irrational, those beliefs have normative value & compel us to act in certain way

Living Donors

  • Distinguish

  1. Donation of regenerative tissue (bone marrow, blood)

  2. Donation of non regenerative tissue

  • 3 legal principles

  1. Can’t consent to procedure causing death

  2. Must fully understand the process involved

  3. Must be permissible under HTA 2004

  • Children Donation

  • No case law/specific guidance

  • Code of Practice – donations very rare, need approval by the Panel + court order (though where child’s Gillick competent, weight must be given in favour of the order) – consider if in child’s best interests (emotional, psychological, physical etc)

  • Can donation ever be in child’s best interests?

  1. Yes – if sibling would otherwise die, welfare of child promoted by donation + emotional benefits

  2. No – World Health Organ suggested a blanket ban

  3. Yes (qualified) – only where it’s a necessity (the only feasible option for preserving life/well being of the recipient who’s a key component in donor’s well being) + BMA: truly exceptional circumstances

  • Incompetent donors

  • S6 HTA – if adult lacks capacity to consent:

  1. Consent can be deemed under MCA 2005

  1. Advance directive (only refusing...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Medical Law Notes.

More Medical Law Samples