Facebook went cartoon crazy over the weekend of 04/10, and now another campaign that really can save lives is sweeping facebook. Just change your profile picture to this or add it as a picture and tag as many people as you can – wouldn’t it be great to see a sea of donor cards by Christmas Day and imagine how many people have joined the organ donor register as a result.

You can set your profile picture from here: http://www.facebook.com/DonorsSaveLives#!/photo.php?fbid=168425209864393&set=a.154240167949564.31466.110371322336449

or by downloading the picture below to your computer then uploading it to your facebook profile.

We would like to think that this rise is in part due to the campaign run by groups such as ourselves in parallel with the national campaigns encouraging people to sign up. Certainly, the feedback we have received has been very encouraging with more and more of you signing up which does now seem to be feeding back into the figures.

It will take time, and there’s lots more to do, but thank you to all that have signed up – and to those that have not yet, there has never been a better time to push for 30%!

Philip Barton
Donors Save Lives

ps. Join us on facebook where we discuss all sorts of transplant issues facing children. You can find us at www.facebook.com/DonorsSaveLives

Surgeons are also being forced to use diseased body parts from cancer sufferers, drug addicts and the very elderly.

Experts say that the waiting list for transplants has now grown so long that hospitals are increasingly resorting to implanting so-called ‘high risk’ organs.

There are around 8,000 people needing an organ donation at any one time and every day three patients die because they do not get one in time.

As a result, doctors say that most patients would probably accept a ‘high risk’ or ‘marginal’ organ as without it they may not survive the year.

They are also using tissue from those more at risk of carrying HIV and Hepatitis C such as gay men and drug users.

These groups are not allowed to give blood but they can donate organs simply because there is such a shortage.

Professor James Neuberger, associate medical director of the NHS Blood and Transplant, the Government agency responsible for organ donations said: ‘In an ideal world you would rather have lungs from 20-year-old healthy people who have never smoked, but that isn’t a luxury we have.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329606/Brutal-reality-sick-transplant-patients-given-lungs-smokers-warns-surgeon.html#ixzz15LEu15Vm

Trials are expected to begin next year to investigate how much drug organs need to be treated with to protect them. If successful, doctors will need to do a final, much larger trial to study how much longer treated donor organs survive in patients. Treatment could be available in hospitals within five years if all goes well.

Full story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/15/mirococept-transplant-organs

Additional info at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322197

You can view the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MehtoWuyRjc

U.S researchers have just unveiled the first prototype model of the device, that could eliminate the need for dialysis.

It would include thousands of microscopic filters to remove toxins from the blood and a bioreactor to mimic the metabolic and water-balancing roles of a real kidney.

The kidney is being developed in a collaborative effort by engineers, biologists and physicians led by Dr Shuvo Roy at the University of California San Francisco.

The treatment has already been proven to work for the sickest patients using a room-sized external model.

The process relies on the body’s blood pressure to perform filtration without needing pumps or an electrical power supply.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1309473/First-implantable-artificial-kidney-remove-demand-dialysis.html#ixzz0yla50k93

I have therefore started a mini-campaign to get the law changed and below is a transcript of progress thus far. If you have any suggestions, or indeed can help in any way feel free to get in touch! I will keep this page updated as and when I hear more. Alternatively, please check our facebook page at www.facebook.com/DonorsSaveLives as this is also very active.

Philip

—–

Thursday 11 Nov 2010: Police have dropped the case against Paul Bex ‘in the public interest’

I am delighted to announce that Paul has been notified by Lincolnshire police that they will not be proceeding with a prosecution as it is not in the public interest to do so. This case is therefore over and I’m sure that Paul is more than relieved. I know he is still keen to see the law changed (as we all are).

There does, however remain the interesting question of what will happen to organ transport ambulances between now and the promised legal changes (which could be a year away). The system relied on the goodwill of the police and everyone being sensible about speeding, but this appears to have broken down…into another grey area!

Monday 08 Nov 2010: Update on Paul’s Case

Spoke to Dave at Lifeline – Paul is still formally ’under investigation’ and it is therefore still possible that he could be charged. They have had a response from Richard P D Crompton, Chief Constable for Lincolnshire Police via their own MP which outlines the position of the police in the matter. I have read the letter but will not publish it here for various reasons but will summarise its contents. The police are sticking to the position that the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 give a definition of an ambulance that would preclude organ transport and therefore they are within rights to prosecute. Further, they contend that there is case law – Lord-Castle v DPP 2009 ([2009] EWHC 87 (Admin)) - “which reaffirms the definition of an ambulance, and would indicate that there may be further offences that have been committed in this case regarding the use of blue lights and sirens in relations to the existing regulations.”

So, it appears that the chief constable of Lincolnshire police is saying that not only does he still want to prosecute Paul, but that it may actually be illegal for all organ transport ambulances to use blue lights and sirens!

What a mess. Not only can they no not break the speed limits, now they cannot even use sirens. This is crazy – delays literally cost lives in these cases.

The letter continues:

“Despite enquiries by my officers, I have been unable to ascertain when these regulations [S19 of the Road Safety Act] will be brought into force or which other vehicles may be covered, which leaves my staff in the position that they can only apply what is covered by existing legislation.”

So, where does this leave us?

1. The department for Transport have told Donors Save Lives that they are changing the law in the next 6-12 months – GOOD!
2. The 6-12 month time-frame for this law change is a little vague; a fixed date would be nice - NEUTRAL
3. Lincolnshire police don’t seem to know about the above points 1 and 2 at all and therefore liable to stop and attempt to prosecute anything that does not fit into what they on the day consider to be a classic ‘ambulance’ – BAD
4. Lincolnshire police have now added on an additional item of magic – that use of blue lights and sirens may be illegal when transporting organs during a transplant operation – VERY VERY BAD
5. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have yet to comment on any of this – ?

I will be forwarding my letter from the Dept. for Transport to Lincolnshire police and the CPS.

Wednesday 27 Oct 2010: Response from Department for Transport – confirmation that the law is being changed in next 6-12 months

Today I received another letter from Oliver Heald MP who has earned my gratitude for his stirling efforts in both tracking down and getting responses from the correct people in government. Oliver – thank you for all your efforts. Oliver’s letter includes the response he has received from the Department for Transport which outlines the current mish-mash of legislation that is causing the problem, and their intent to correct this within the next 6 to 12 months (although as a side note, I keep hearing this timescale but no fixed dates – I will keep a watch to see that this does indeed actually materialise).

The response letter from the DoT makes interesting reading: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

So does this help Paul? Well, again, it’s hard to see how a prosecution can proceed on the basis that the law is pending a change that would have meant that Paul was exempt at the time of the offence. It is of course still technically possible for a prosecution to be mounted, but it would be very silly indeed and nobody would win from such a case.

Thursday 07 Oct 2010: Response from Department of Health – Result!

Got a reply from Oliver Heald MP who in turn was forwarding the response he got from the UK government Department of Health. The letter is quite important in that it (as far as I can tell) effectively demolishes any case against Paul on the basis that they consider him to have been an ambulance in all but name at the time. It also reveals that the Department for Transport have enacted the powers to update the law to clarify the legal situation with regards to organ transportation and intend to do so ‘in the next 6-12 months’.

Given that the law is likely to change and the written evidence of support that the UK government consider vehicles carrying organs to be ambulances it is difficult to see how any prosecution could pass a basic ‘in the public interest’ test, much less have much of a realistic prospect of conviction in court. Still, I am no legal practitioner so we shall see what the CPS do!

You can see the letter here: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

—–

Monday 27 Sept 2010: Update

Spoke to Paul’s manager at Lifeline last week. CPS still have not formally pressed charges, just collecting more paperwork. He’ll let me know if and when that changes so I’ll post to this page when I know more.

Friday 24 Sept 2010: Lots happening!

Sorry for the long post – a lot is going on…

1. A response from Ms Nicola Sturgeon, MSP
2. Legal representation for Paul
3. Letters to the CPS and Law Society

1. A response from Ms Nicola Sturgeon, MSP

Catriona Hamilton from Transplant Kids sends us the response she has had from her MSP. This is encouraging, but effectively underlines the fact that drivers will still be reliant on the goodwill of individual police forces and their willingness to stick to agreed ‘protocols’. This seems a most unsatisfactory situation to me and still exposes the drivers to legal risk. The response underlines the need for a legislative resolution.

Sent: Wed 22/09/10 8:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: Emergency Vehicles

Emergency Vehicles

Dear Ms Hamilton

Thank you for your email dated 2 September 2010 to Ms Nicola Sturgeon, MSP regarding the driver of a private ambulance who is being prosecuted for driving in excess of the speed limit while transporting an organ for transplant. The Minister has passed your correspondence to me and asked that I respond to you direct.

I cannot comment on the particular case you have highlighted as I do not know the full circumstances of the case. In any event it would not be appropriate to make any comment until the outcome of the case has been determined in the Courts.

In general, however, the legislation relating to the use of emergency vehicles is reserved and therefore the same laws apply in Scotland as throughout the rest of the UK. Currently an ambulance is defined as a vehicle that is used to convey sick, injured or disabled people. This definition was adequate when the ambulance service was in its infancy but it no longer reflects the range of duties carried out by the modern ambulance service such as motorcycle paramedics which are often the first to respond to emergency situations. The UK Government are aware of the situation and I understand they are intending to amend the legislation although a timescale for this has still to be decided.

Notwithstanding, any changes to the legislation to bring clarity to the definition of an ambulance would not mean that the drivers of such vehicles would be automatically immune from prosecution for traffic offences. Emergency vehicles do not have to comply with some traffic laws if they are responding to an emergency, i.e., they do not have to stay within the posted speed limit or comply with red traffic signals. They must, however, ensure the manner of their driving does not recklessly endanger other road users. For example, a driver passing through a red light at speed without taking account of crossing traffic would be open to prosecution. Similarly any driver travelling at an unnecessary high speed for the road conditions or at a speed which was beyond their level of driving competence or the capabilities of their vehicle would run the risk of prosecution irrespective of the urgency of the situation.

The Police in Scotland are very aware of the important role that the ambulance services and other first responders have in keeping the public safe. Work is currently underway with the Scottish Ambulance

Service and with private organisations to develop protocols to minimise the risk of a situation developing which would result in the prosecution of any of their drivers for failing to comply with the traffic laws when they are responding to an emergency.

I hope the above is helpful. If, however, you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me

Jim Dale

Police Division

2. Legal representation for Paul

The wonderful people at www.lawworks.org.uk have agreed to provide legal assistance to Paul, free of charge, should the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide to take the case to court. Thanks to Meinir Evans for making all this possible. All I can say is that the transplant community is a truly fantastic group. I’ll update you on this as I know more.

3. Letters to the CPS and Law Society

With the invaluable help and assistance of Meinir Evans I have written to the Law Society and CPS regarding Paul’s case and how it highlights that the law needs to be changed. You can read my letter here, and the CPS response I got back here.

—–

Saturday 11 Sept 2010: Chasing Leads…

Currently chasing some interesting new leads on the law front, hope to know more soon…

Might have another ray of good news for Paul as well. Can’t say more on that one either yet until it pans out! Grrr.

Catriona Hamilton from Transplant Kids is also chasing the Scottish MSPs to provide another angle on it, but no news back from them yet (early days though).

—–

Sunday 05 Sept 2010: Response From Oliver Heald,  Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

(nb. auto email response prior to this advised that he was out of office until Friday 3rd)

Dear Mr Barton,

Many thanks for your email, which arrived while I was away for a few days.

I shall immediately take up your points with Ministers at the Department of Health and will be in touch as soon as I receive their response.

Best wishes

Oliver Heald MP

Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire http://www.oliverhealdmp.com

—–

Wednesday 1st Sept 2010: Letter to Oliver Heald,  Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Oliver Heald,

My name is Philip Barton, and I run a website called Donors Save Lives (www.DonorsSaveLives.org) which aims to raise awareness of the impact of organ donation in children.

You may have seen in the last few days the story of Paul Bex in the national press, an ambulance driver who is being prosecuted for speeding whilst on duty carrying a liver for transplant from Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, to the North East. On first appearances, this seems strange as ambulances are normally exempt from speed restrictions. However, the law which defines an ambulance was last updated in 1946 and still defines it as “the carriage of sick, injured or disabled people”. This means a vehicle used to relay organs cannot be registered as an ambulance and therefore they are still technically subject to prosecution, which is what is happening in this case.

It is sad to note that the police are still insisting on prosecution despite being fully aware of the circumstances.You can read some background on the case in the national press here:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196218/Ambulance-driver-could-lose-job-for-speeding-to-save-a-life

It is *vital* that ambulances transporting human organs are treated in the same way as other ambulances – indeed time is critical when an organ is out of a body – literally every minute counts and is no less important than reaching a heart attack victim or transporting a patient to hospital. The success or failure of the transplant operation can depend on the state of the organ when it reaches the recipient, sometimes the other end of the country. These ambulance drivers are highly trained and committed, just like other ambulance drivers and I would ask you to look into getting the law updated to include tissue transport in the definition of an ambulance. If the police insist on prosecution then the effect of not doing so will mean that delays will occur, and ultimately lives will be lost as a result of a legal quirk.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Barton

Donors Save Lives

www.DonorsSaveLives.org

A toddler who was just a month old when he had a heart transplant has been reunited with hospital staff who helped to save his life.

Tom Stacey’s parents had no idea how ill he was when they rushed him to accident and emergency at Colchester General Hospital in Essex when he was eight days old.

Tom, who is now 20 months old, was the youngest boy in Britain to have a heart transplant.

Video clip from BBC News at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11141626

The demand for organ donors far outstrips the supply.

In this week’s Scrubbing Up, Martin Wilkinson, a visiting professor at Keele University and former chairman of the New Zealand Bioethics Council, argues that selling organs is the way forward.

When people’s organs fail, their best hope – sometimes their only hope – is a transplant.

Transplants are not only effective treatment, they are worth the money too. But there are not enough organs.

Tinkering with the rules for consent, using less-than-pristine organs, and more donations by living people have still left a big gap between supply and demand.

Should the law be changed so that people could sell their organs? I think it should.

Permitting sale would mean more people could get the organs they need. People should not be stopped from selling their organs because they have a right to do what they want with their bodies when they would not be harming others.

Read the full article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211

Agree? Disagree?

This is a controversial topic. Comment and discuss with others in the transplant community at our facebook page at www.facebook.com/DonorsSaveLives