Publication - Consultation analysis

Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Specified Type A Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations: consultation analysis

Published: 21 Feb 2020

Analysis of responses to a consultation held on the proposed content of the Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Specified Type A Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations.

19 page PDF

289.5 kB

19 page PDF

289.5 kB

Contents
Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Specified Type A Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations: consultation analysis
Amendments to wording (Q3)

19 page PDF

289.5 kB

Amendments to wording (Q3)

Question 3: If any amendments to the wording in the Type A procedures list are required, please comment here.

61. The consultation paper invited respondents to consider the wording of the procedures on the proposed Type A list.

62. 13 of 19 respondents responded to this question. Five of these responses indicated that the respondent had either no comment on the list in this regard or it was 'N/A'. Of the remaining eight respondents that submitted a comment (five organisations and 3 individuals) each respondent highlighted different parts of the consulted list or used their response to this question to more widely reflect or comment upon the new statutory framework governing pre-death procedures set out in the 2019 Act.

Proposed amendments

63. Some respondents noted that the proposed wording for the collection of a urine sample ('taking of a urine sample by way of a urinary catheter') could be too restrictive as not all patients might have a urinary catheter already inserted due to their clinical condition.

64. Engagement with clinical stakeholders during the consultation period indicated that such an occurrence will be rare, but nonetheless may be the case.

65. It was suggested that this may be amended in the Type A list to a less prescriptive description, to allow other methods to be carried out as Type A.

66. A further suggestion was made by one respondent regarding the phrasing to describe continuing artificial ventilation.

Other comments

67. Beyond direct suggestions as provided above, some respondents who provided a substantive response to this question did not directly answer it but instead posed questions or other considerations.

68. One organisational response was submitted that reflected more widely on the ability of the regulations to be amended as required timeously.

69. This respondent noted that it takes time and resources for all parties involved, so as a result the prescription of such a list should be sought to be future proofed as far as possible. Echoing discussions with clinical stakeholders throughout the consultation process and comments by other respondents made elsewhere, this comment highlighted that emerging medical technologies will likely mean that any set list will require amendment in the near future as newer technologies emerge and clinical practice develops.


Contact

Email: ODlegislation@gov.scot