Decison day in organs case

More than 2,000 bereaved families who claim organs were removed from their dead children without consent by the NHS are set to learn if they had won a High Court compensation battle.

Mr Justice Gage was giving his ruling in an action brought by parents who say their loved ones had organs taken without consent by the NHS in a morally and ethically "objectionable" practice.

When the case opened in London in January, Richard Lissack QC, counsel for 2,140 claimants, stressed that it was not about demonising the medical profession, but about righting a "great wrong".

The action centred on three lead cases involving the removal and retention of organs.

The babies were Rosina Harris, whose parents Karen and David are from the Dorchester area; Daniel Carpenter, whose parents Alan and Susan live in Norfolk; and Laura Shorter, whose mother Denise lives in the Oxford area.

Mr Lissack told court: "Over the period of which this litigation is concerned, it was the common practice of the medical profession to remove, retain, use for a variety of medical purposes, then either keep in store or dispose of organs from the dead.

"In itself that practice is not necessarily objectionable, save where it offended an individual's religious beliefs or moral values."

What was objectionable, he said, was when this was done "without the knowledge, let alone the agreement of the relatives".

Mr Lissack told the judge: "We submit that the practice was objectionable on three levels - morally, ethically and legally."

Sally Smith QC, for the NHS Litigation Authority, which contested the action, said it should not be thought for one moment that it forgot or sought to minimise the "terrible human tragedies" which underlay the claims. But she rejected the allegation that anything unlawful had been done in the cases before the court.

Most watched News videos