It would seem that Scottish doctors are placing their own personal morals ahead of legislation, and patients waiting for organ transplants are suffering as a result.

New laws passed the Scottish Parliament in September 2006, allowing doctors to “take organs from donor card-carrying patients even if relatives object”, have seen medics “proved reluctant on ethical grounds to override the wishes of next-of-kin.”

The Australian Parliament has been considering this option as a way to reduce organ waiting lists, but the Scottish example should prove food for thought for legislators anywhere in the world considering this approach.

The article, in the ScotsmanonSunday, says that “since the new rules aimed at strengthening donation were introduced 10 months ago the waiting list has grown by about 20% and the number of transplants has dropped slightly.”

The question which needs to be answered here, is whether a doctor’s philosophical, religious, or moral objections should be a factor in them acting within the current legislatory framework?

Surely if a doctor objected on moral or religious grounds to administering the most basic of medical technologies, such as influenza immunisations, they would either be sacked, or moved to a department where their (misguided?) views would not impact negatively on outcomes for healthcare consumers?

It is offensive that, given a deceased person has consented to donate their organs, a relative (even an estranged one) can over-ride this consent.

What do you think? Would you be happy for your family to over-ride your consent to be an organ donor? Do you think it’s fair, as someone waiting for an organ, that the family of a deceased person can object, even though the deceased person has consented?