This response was submitted to the consultation held by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on Give
and take? Human bodies in medicine and research between April 2010 and July 2010. The views
expressed are solely those of the respondent(s) and not those of the Council.
University of Leicester Medical School - group 11
Question 26
We are first year medical students and considered this question as part of the
Medical Ethics and Law course at Leicester Medical School. Surely a deceased
person has no further use for their body, therefore it does not matter what is done
with the remains? This debate has many ethical and religious complications. Some
believe the body is taken into the afterlife so is extremely valuable, some just want
to be shown respect after they have died. If the person has previously indicated,
and recorded, the path their body should take after they die their wishes should be
respected. If they have not specified, however, the body should surely be the
responsibility of the state to avoid complications and ensure the body is treated
with respect. This would not be ownership, more taking temporary responsibility
for the body. No one has the right to a dead body, unless previously specified by
the deceased. If there is a reason the body cannot be released to the public, for
reasons such as infection, it should be disposed of respectfully with the intent of
providing the family with some form of remains, the ashes for example.
Question 27
We are first year medical students and considered this question as part of the
Medical Ethics and Law course at Leicester Medical School. We feel that this
question would involve many issues. Whilst the obvious case in favour of this is
the large shortage of organs and other material at the moment in the UK, and the
incentive of payment may well help this situation, this apparent solution has many
potential problems. Firstly, we feel there would need to be a strict definition of
“bodily material” and clarification about whether the law was the same for all
“material”. Would it be possible to sell body parts to people outside of the UK if
there was a suitable match abroad, perhaps having first exhausted the possibility of
a match in the UK, or would this be confined solely to sale within the UK? We
must carefully consider what the consequences to society as a whole would be if
we made body parts a commercial commodity. We think most would agree that by
permitting financial gain in exchange of human organs there is a strong possibility
that the poorer members of society may be tempted to offer body parts as a
method of easing financial difficulties. People in this desperate situation may see
this as the only way out and therefore not fully consider the potential health
implications for themselves, which could be considerable and include the risks of
anaesthetic, surgery, infection and the need for the donated material later in life-for
example a person who donates a kidney and then develops kidney failure
themselves. Should a person therefore be allowed to sell a body part and receive
the money whilst alive, but the buyer not be able to receive the body part until the
person has died. This would of course negate the arguments given above for the
