The Alder Hey Children’s Hospital located in Liverpool England was subject to much media attention after the discovery of a vast collection of human tissue and organs harvested from deceased patients. The public outcry came as a result of the release of the public inquiry which informed that over 2000 organs of infants had been retained between the years 1988-1999. The enquiry in itself in 1999 was almost a chance event, following the inquiry into the Bristol Royal Infirmary, where it was founded that surgeons had been retaining infants and children organs and human tissue without informed consent from the deceased’s parents. The highly acclaimed collection of organs was almost a prized possession to the Chair of Foetal and Infant Pathology at Alder Hey, Professor Dick Van -Velzen, and due to his indiscretion, the Alder Hospital was next subject to the later named Redfern report.
Under Van -Velzen’s influence, the number of harvested organs were exaggerated in the name of medical research and advancement. He abused his power and status in the hospital to morbidly demand “every organ in every case” (Redfern, Keeling & Powell, 2001, p.155) [1], most obtained without informed consent from the parents of the deceased. That being said, whilst unethically obtained organ harvesting and storage from the deceased was not historically uncommon in the medical world, however it had not been this large scale before. The significance of Van Velzen’s notorious actions were that the abundance of organs and human tissue obtained were unnecessary, as for the most part were removed and retained with no further involvement in research.
“Alder Hey gave the impression that as parents we had little or no right to know what happened to our children after death”(Redfern, Keeling & Powell,2001) [1]
An estimated 2000-2500 jars of stored organs were found during the inquiry [2].Whilst the inquiry resulted in most of these organs being returned to the mourning families, there were unidentifiable remains. Many families had to rebury their lost loved ones, and restart their healing processes. The abrupt knowledge that part of their child had been taken from them without their knowledge, less their consent was devastating and had huge implications on the affected families. Parents of the deceased indicated that had they been informed of the causes of death of their children, they would have understood the necessity and been more inclined to provide informed consent to retain the organs of tissue for medical education and research purposes.[1]
This scandal gave rise to public questioning of the ethics and practice of the medical community, and the legitimacy of power of the people in a clinical setting. Jewson’s “sick-man thesis” [3] would describe the actions of medical practitioners such as Van Velzen actions as reducing patients to their illnesses, isolating them as a collection of cells rather than a human being. As a consequence of this incident, fuelled by the indignation of the people, particularly the victimised parents of the deceased children, the public once again challenge their role in the evolution of biomedicine. In lieu of the nonconsensual retention of these organs, the Human Tissue Act (2004) arose from this horrific history of scandal in the UK, to “regulate the removal, storage, use and disposal of human bodies, organs and tissue.” (BBC News, 2006) [4]
[1] Redfern, M., Keeling, J., & Powell, E. (2001). The Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry Report (pp. 18,86,89,100,102,130,155-157,176,239,356,448-450,452,455-457). Norwich: The Stationary Office Limited.
[2]Storage of Human organs prompts three enquiries. Richards, Tessa. BMJ : British Medical Journal; London Vol. 320, Iss. 7227, (Jan 8, 2000): 77
[3] Jewson, Nick, “The disappearance of the sick-man from medical cosmology, 1770-1870”. Sociology (1974) 225-244.
[4] 2006. BBC News. August 30. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4944018.stm
Alder Hey Scandal 