| Human Tissue Bill
|
|
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I appreciate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tabling the amendment. It is right to seek clarification on how people with mental incapacity will be treated under this Bill. I raised that point on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). Clause 3 is about appropriate consent for adults and we have just dealt with the clause on appropriate consent for children. However, people with mental incapacity are another issue. Children are clearly vulnerable in many ways and of special interest. In my opinion, people with mental incapacity are similarly vulnerable and need special arrangements. Other organisations have also asked for clarification. For example, the Royal College of Nursing asked for clarification on procedures for those with learning difficulties or incapacities. The assumption seems to be that people with mental illness Column Number: 104 and mental incapacity need to be treated in the same way as every other adult. That may not be appropriate. Whereas many would want to be treated equally and to have the same rules apply to them as to other adults, there is a specific difference. Their judgment may be easily or overly influenced and they may not make the best decision in terms of their own interest. They may not even be fully capable of making such a decision. That needs to be taken into account.I have raised the issue of criminal brains and I asked questions about that on Second Reading. I am told that there is a market for such brains, because a criminal gene is being looked for. There could also be a search for a mentally ill persons' gene; in future, there could be a demand for the body parts, particularly the brain, of someone with a specific mental illness. That needs to be considered. I ask the Minister for clarification because of that particular vulnerability. Dr. Gibson: I am sure that I could offer my brain to the Government Whips, who would probably take it with great alacrity at the moment. As I understand it, the Mental Incapacity Bill will examine a system of advocacy for patients and how they are supported and helped, recognising the fact that the system is often hard for them to unearth. That will help to meet some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend. Harry Cohen: I certainly welcome that and I would support such a system. However, this Bill does not touch on that issue. There should be a code of guidance, or something in the Bill that cross-references it to that system of advocacy. I am glad that the amendment has been tabled, as it means that we can get some clarification from the Minister on that important point. Dr. Harris: I support amendments (a) and (b). They probe on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. It should be noted that his amendment is about matters that are ''not contrary'' to the interests of people, rather than in their best interests. That is important, because a requirement that related to their best interests might make it difficult to carry out non-therapeutic research. It may not be in the best interests of such a person to carry out non-therapeutic research, but it certainly cannot be contrary to their interest for research to be carried out. That would be the case not only on research, but with regard to the purposes set out in paragraphs 5 and 3 of schedule 1:
and education and training. If I may give an example of people who, in my experience, are almost always incapacitated— It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. Column Number: 105
The following Members attended the Committee:
Column Number: 106 Ladyman, Dr. Lansley, Mr. Lucas, Ian Murrison, Dr. Naysmith, Dr. Ryan, Joan Taylor, Dr. Richard Winterton, Ms Rosie
|
| |
| Prepared 29 January 2004 | |
