Agenda item

GMP Officers provided the Committee with a verbal update on issues surrounding the retention of human tissue.

Following mistakes made in a case that had drawn national attention. GMP had previously liaised with the Committee in its research around the adoption of national guidelines. It was advised that national guidelines contained three classifications determining the types of material held – these were:

• Class 1: Material taken at a post-mortem examination that would not normally be considered as part of the body (e.g. scrapings, fingernails, hair and stomach contents)
• Class 2: Samples of human tissue which are not a significant part of the body (e.g. blood samples, small tissue, blocks, slides etc)
• Class 3:  Samples of human tissue that incorporates a significant part of the body (e.g. organs, limbs etc)

…and that the method of disposal for each would generally be as follows:

• Class 1: Disposal by incineration
• Class 2: Where the family are still contactable and have stated that they would like the material to be returned, then contact them and offer to return the material (advising them of the potential health hazards and recommend handling through an undertaker); alternatively, it can be disposed of through incineration on behalf of the family.
• Class 3: Where the family is still contactable and they have stated that they would like the material to be returned
  • And is within five years of the post-mortem
    • Be contacted with the offer of returning the material (advising them of the potential health hazards and recommend handling through an undertaker, and only returning when arrangements are in place for the burial or cremation of the body part or organ)
    • Disposed of, with arrangements made for the material to be cremated in suitable circumstances or in accordance with their culture/religion

§  Returned, a balance should be struck between the significance of the material and the time from the post-mortem examination. The more significant the material, the longer the period of time should be allowed after the post-mortem to contact the family about disposal

§  Disposed of (as above)

Where they have not expressed a wish for the material to be returned, or are not contactable, the material should be dealt with exactly as if they had asked for it to be returned.

Following a request from the Assistant Chief Constable that all samples be found and categorised, GMP had become aware of a significant number of extra samples, including around 700 samples in category 2, creating a substantial amount of work.

The Deputy Mayor and the Home Office Pathology Team were being kept regularly updated on any developments.

Comments and Questions

Discussion took place around the categorisation of hair, and whether it should be considered as Class 1 or Class 2. It was explained that national policy determined that a plucked hair would remain Class 1. It was emphasised that this would likely be a single strand of hair, rather than a full locket.

Committee Members expressed concern that despite having been consulted on this issue around three years previously, they had not been involved in any subsequent consultations or conversations. However, wider publicity on the issue had indicated the continued involvement of the Committee – with this in mind, it was felt that there needed to be more care taken in advertising how the decision making process was led.

Committee Members recalled that their previous collective view had been to adopt a slightly enhanced version of the national guidelines. GMP Officers advised that they had discussed this issue with the Deputy Mayor – with a problem being that at the time the recommendation had been made the understanding had been that there were only 32 Class 2 samples to considered, rather than the 700 that now had to be considered. Such a large number of samples would require a significant amount of extra funding and resources for an enhanced process to be viable. There had also been some feedback from a number of families stating that the efforts had not be welcomed and that the process had reintroduced previous trauma, so care needed to be taken around the adoption of such an approach.

Committee Members felt that if their involvement had initially been considered as important - to hear the final decision having varied without the Committee being first informed and talked through the decision taken and the reasoning behind it was a concern. The Committee fully accepted that GMP could have still disagreed with the Committee’s opinion, but at least it would have been a process. This now instead appeared as more of a fait accompli.

GMP Officers stated that the decision paper had referenced the work with the ethics committee, however feedback received from families and the National Policy were overriding factors in the final decision. The concerns of the Committee about their lack of latter day involvement would be noted and fed back to chief officers.

RESOLVED/-

1.      That the update on policy around the retention of human tissue in Greater Manchester be received by the Committee.

2.      That whilst the reasons informing the Greater Manchester Police decision to follow national policy on the retention of human tissue be noted. The Committee wishes to note its concern around the principle that when it has formed part of the policy making process, protocol should dictate that it be informed of changes to the policy before being made public.