So today I found out...

[sledger]

What is the authority for this?

Human Tissue Act 2004

 

[andmark]

https://www.lawteacher.net/acts/human-tissue-act-2004.php

The above article talks about it. The context is in part of the reaction to hospitals taking organs of dead children without the consent of the parents (I can't believe I've just said that). From what I can tell, the act is intended to regulate the removal of organs rather than simply allow it.

 

[Flem274*]

2/10

? it's terrible the UK gov can do that

 

[Ikki]

So I have a question. My first response is "wtf that's shocking", but when I think about it more, I feel like whether this is legal or not makes almost no difference whatsoever. In circumstances where the government has abused its powers (e.g. the mass internment and torture in Northern Ireland, Hillsborough) it just obfuscates, covers stuff up, uses "national security concerns" to prevent the release of material that would allow for a fair trial, and launches a series of toothless inquiries and reports in lieu of pursuing justice. The legality of what happened in Northern Ireland is little more than an arcane theoretical question for future academics to debate into the void when anyone who might be held accountable is either long dead or has too much institutional power to put on trial. Hillsborough, maybe one or two people will go down for it this year, 30 years later and with hundreds of survivors and family members having had to exert an obscene amount of effort to even get to this point.

So why does it matter whether this is legal or not?

Stating this more succinctly:

For extreme rights violations, the law has repeatedly proven to be an extremely ineffective means of holding the UK government to account. This being so, why does it matter whether extreme rights violations are technically legal or not?

Erm, because it is wrong and should be pointed out as wrong? If history means anything it is to record this as such so future generations don't follow.

Unfortunately, the newer generations tend to make up their own exceptions when it comes to stealing via government.

 

[silentstriker]

Has this ever been used on people who are alive?

I think more likely, material removed would be like blood tests might be forced on you even if you don't want to, in order to see if you have Ebola or something.

I think it's reasonable given high enough threshold that the government would have to meet.

 

[sledger]

No reported incidents so far as I know.

As a general rule though consent is needed to take bodily material from dead people too. De facto Illegal to harvest organs from people who die.