Dr Trevor Mudge, AMA Vice President, with Vivian Schenker, Radio National 'Breakfast' program

It emphasises the need for families to be fully informed about what the process will involve, and gives relatives a say in exactly how body parts are used after the autopsy. While that's probably good news for relatives, some sections of the medical fraternity are worried the code might restrict the supply of organs available for transplants and teaching purposes.

Dr Trevor Mudge chairs the Australian Medical Association's Ethics Committee. Trevor, welcome to Breakfast.

MUDGE: Good morning Vivien.

SCHENKER: Now, broadly, does the AMA support the principles of this code?

MUDGE: Oh yes, it does. I mean, I think that the profession very early recognised that practices in this area have to change, and I think that we very much welcome anything that might seek to restore public confidence in the process, because the process is very important to the future of good quality medical care.

SCHENKER: Okay, well what aspects do concern you?

MUDGE: Well, I think that the whole debate has been surrounded by a lot of emotive terms and a lot of ghoulishness really. I mean, the very term 'body parts' I think really is not body parts, we're talking about surgical specimens derived from dead bodies. The terms 'body parts' suggests that the medical profession is harvesting bits from living people and, of course, that isn't the case.

It's been essential for the practice of medicine for doctors and medical students to have available surgical specimens from dead bodies that have been affected by disease, because this is how doctors and medical students learn.

SCHENKER: Indeed, but how would that further limit the supply of organs available for teaching and transplant purposes, how would that happen?

MUDGE: Well, I think with a diminution of confidence by the general public in the processes surrounding death - and death, of course, is such a mysterious business for many of us - that people may be inhibited from volunteering to donate their relatives surgical specimens to pathology laboratories.

SCHENKER: But isn't it possible it would work the other way, that relatives would be more willing to approve autopsies and to approve the supply of organs if they know that proper procedures are to be followed?

MUDGE: That's certainly what we hope, and I think it's now time to move forward beyond the emotion and the ghoulishness if you like, towards restoring confidence, and hopefully getting back to that position.

SCHENKER: When you say that ghoulishness has played a part in making people reluctant to approve autopsies, what do you mean by that, how has that happened?

MUDGE: Well I think if you look at some of the publicity that's appeared in the media. I mean, Stephen King could have written some of it I think, especially some of the television coverage. It certainly caused a lot of members of the medical profession a great deal of concern.

SCHENKER: Well yes, but possibly rightly so, I mean, if the medical profession is doing these things - no matter how necessary - without permission and without informing relatives, then how is it ghoulish to bring that to public attention?

MUDGE: I accept entirely that practices need to change, needed to change, and from the very beginning of this I think there was, there has been cooperation from the medical profession. You know these are practices - long standing practices - from many decades, or even hundreds of years ago, and times have certainly changed and in many areas I think the medical profession - just as in some areas of the judiciary - have been slow to keep pace with changes in society's views of these things, and I don't deny that for a minute.

But look, it's terribly important that we don't have anything that puts a brake on the potential for families to agree to donate organs. There's a vast shortage of organs and organ donation in this country. We're way behind many other countries in terms of our rates of organ donation. People are dying for want of donated organs - it's very important that we do something about our falling autopsy rate. I mean, when I was a medical student almost every death in a hospital had an autopsy, and doctors were able to learn lessons. And if the medical profession can't learn lessons from the dead, it can't care properly for the living.

SCHENKER: Well, if this code won't do that, what would you suggest?

MUDGE: We hope this code will do it, certainly the medical profession will be behind it.

SCHENKER: So, you are 100 per cent happy with the code? I'm not quite sure, I mean you were saying earlier on that you were concerned about some aspects of it, and now you seem to be saying that the code will fulfil the need.

MUDGE: We're happy with the code, we're very unhappy with the publicity that's surrounded the events of the last few years.

SCHENKER: Well, perhaps if the events that led to the publicity diminish because of this code, then everybody will be more happy.

TREVOR MUDGE: That's certainly our hope, too.

SCHENKER: Okay, Dr Mudge thanks very much for your time this morning.

TREVOR MUDGE: You're welcome Vivien.

SCHENKER: Dr Trevor Mudge, chair of the AMA's Ethics Committee.

Ends