Proposition 51K1837

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 13 juin 1986 sur le prélèvement et la transplantation d'organes.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Richard Fournaux

Submission date

June 7, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

infancy organ transplant public health

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 4, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I will limit myself to a reference to the written report given the very large consensus that exists on this bill between the various parties sitting in the committee and having taken the floor. I think of CD&V and other parties. They all see the importance of a sufficiently large bank of organ donors. In that sense there was unanimity, both in the article-by-article discussion and in the final vote by article and the final final vote, this after a number of technical adjustments to the articles.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the rapporteur, Mr. Chevalier, does not honor himself too much. He made a good report of an interesting discussion on an interesting and important topic. Honour who deserves. We have been able to make a good text on the proposal of our colleagues Fournaux, Bacquelaine and other members of the MR group.

This is a very important topic because organ donation saves human lives. In this regard, we have long known a defensive legislation that assumed that someone who did not undertake anything was willing to take away organs. Then it only begins. At the time when people would be eligible to donate organs, a procedure still follows, even before the family, which in those circumstances usually does not allow for organ donation.

This proposal clearly seeks to transfer the arrangements that parents may have concluded for their minor children to the major once concerned who has reached the age.

I hope and believe that this is also the intention of the Minister as he has already taken a number of initiatives in this regard that we will use this bill to once again strengthen the campaign around organ donation.

We can take all kinds of measures, but the minister knows better than anyone that, if one does not do to sensitize and constantly attract the attention of the people, usually not much of it comes into the house.

I hope that the text that we unanimously approved in the committee will become more known and that this is also part of the whole plan that the minister is drafting around a positive approach to organ donation.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will not recall here how important organ donation is: my collaborators have prepared for me a small note to emphasize its interest, but as Mr. Speaker indicated. Chevalier, this Chamber is unanimous in recognizing the usefulness of concentrating all our efforts to make organ donation an increasingly developed part of life in society.

In this tribune, I do not want to stumble you with a mass of numbers that no one would hear, but I will nevertheless quote you a few fundamental points of reference. I draw your attention to the fact that, on December 31, 2005, in our country, 966 people were waiting for a kidney, 249 from a liver, 32 from a heart, 60 from a lung and 34 from a pancreas. Compared to 2004, the increase in demand for kidneys, liver and lungs is undeniable. In 2005, 103 people on waiting lists died unfortunately due to lack of available organs. These figures should make us think.

If the number of people accepting to declare themselves donors of organs is on the rise, it is worth noting that there is also an increase in the number of refusals. This is the reverse of the campaign medal: by attracting public attention to organ donation, a majority of people respond positively, but a part then respond with the negative.

We must therefore make every effort to promote organ donation and reduce the number of potential refusals of organ donation.

A year ago, on the initiative of my group leader, Daniel Bacquelaine, with the help of the chairman of the House and all the parliamentary groups and in collaboration with all the departments of the House, we were able to organize a colloquium on organ donation. The aim was to find, by legislative means or through the use of the new electronic identity card, a solution to encourage organ donation in our country. Representatives from all sectors interested in organ donation came to testify.

It must be acknowledged that our proposal aimed at encouraging every citizen when he is going to take his electronic identity card in the municipal house to make a statement under the terms of which he accepts or refuses to be an organ donor has not obtained the desired success. We proposed that the data on organ donation and blood group be entered on the electronic identity card. This would allow families not to have to make a decision about donating organs to their loved ones and, therefore, reduce the rate of family rejection.

Participants at the conference raised various practical problems related to the implementation of this measure. We temporarily put it aside.

In particular, I would like to address Mr. The Minister of Public Health and, if the Minister of Internal Affairs was present, I would also address him — we believe that we must nevertheless continue to reflect on all that should be undertaken, in compliance with a whole series of other legislations, including that relating to the protection of privacy. There are ⁇ ways to undertake numerous initiatives aimed at using the concept of the new electronic identity card even better, especially in the field of public health, to enhance and promote organ donation.

Beyond this, ⁇ too ambitious, measure we had imagined, the participants at our conference highlighted that a number of different measures could sometimes be taken much more simply to encourage people to donate organs.

More specifically, we were informed that, according to estimates, ⁇ 55,000 children were registered in the National Register as non-donor by their parents between 1986 and 1998, at the time of the adoption of the Law on Organ Proliferation. The problem raised, we decided, together with colleagues from different political groups, to file this bill in order to correct the shot and, if you pass the expression, to "recover" these potential donors.

The Act of 23 June 1986 on the collection and transplantation of organs provides that organs, tissues and cells intended for transplantation may be taken from the body of any person registered in the population register or, for more than six months, in the register of foreigners. Everyone is given the opportunity to oppose the collection. This law is therefore based on the principle of presumed consent under which one is considered as a donor, unless its refusal is expressed.

Opposition to the collection may be expressed, depending on the case, by the person concerned or by relatives – always through the registration in the national register. The doctor may not carry out a collection when an opposition has been expressed or when a relative has communicated to him his refusal. Only the latter can rely on the express will of the donor that he himself would have collected.

Regarding minors – and this is the point we have intervened – their parents can act on their behalf and express their opposition. Many parents have therefore acted in the interest of protecting their children by registering them in the national register as non-donors. Today we are suffering from a shortage of donors.

The aim of our proposal is to “recover” these potential donors. We therefore propose the automatic cancellation of the opposition to the collection when the children reach the age of 18. Those persons would be informed of this cancellation and could, if they wish, easily re-register. The King would arrange this information as well as a transitional period in order to allow the persons concerned to make their own choices.

In addition, we have decided to cancel not only the opposition to organ donation but also the consent. In the majority, this reduction to zero will allow the young adult to exercise his free choice.

During the vote in the Public Health Committee, our proposal received the support of all democratic parties. We are delighted to see that there is no political division on such a topic of society.

In addition to the measure envisaged in our bill, it is necessary to promote and develop the declaration in advance. Any person capable of expressing his will can now address the municipal administration of his domicile to declare his consent to any organ or tissue removal after his death. It is essential to continue to inform citizens about organ donation in general and the possibility of this approach.

Initiatives in this direction have already been organized in the past, such as, for example, "Bourgeois in Choir". We are pleased that this initiative will be renewed in the next municipal elections. In this context, on 28 June 2005, Minister Demotte, in collaboration with SPF Public Health, launched his campaign on organ donation, Beldonor. Since the start of this campaign, the number of Belgians who registered their consent to organ donation has increased from 33,850 to 45,288, an increase of ⁇ 11,438 people. However, 2,003 new oppositions were registered. Currently, 192,581 objections are recorded in the national register. According to the latest figures, there would be 50,000 who have signed their agreement to organ donation.

Today we all want to rejoice for the initiatives that have been taken and it is in all modesty but also with happiness that we bring our very little stone to this building as useful to society and in particular to the many people waiting for an organ donation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the author of the bill and above all welcome the openness of mind that animated the work in committee. All the groups could, in fact, participate in the transformation of the text to allow a reduction to zero of the possibility of organ donation from the age of majority. This collective work enabled a unanimous vote of the Public Health Committee.