Removal of organs and other tissues from bodies of former nuclear plant workers over 30-year period was result of 'unacceptable working practices', energy secretary says

The removal of organs and other tissues from the bodies of 76 former workers at nuclear plants over a 30-year period that began in the 1960s should not have happened and was the result of "unacceptable working practices" in the NHS, the coroners service and the nuclear industry, the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, said yesterday.

Speaking in the Commons to launch the report that followed a three-year inquiry into the affair, Huhne confirmed that families' views had not always been obtained before organs had been taken, as required under the law.

He offered assurances that the many concerns raised over organ retention for research had been addressed by changes to the law.

The inquiry, led by Michael Redfern QC, was ordered in 2007 by the then trade and industry secretary Alistair Darling, when it emerged that organs had been removed from former workers from the nuclear facility at Sellafield, some without the permission of relatives.

It was initially set up to look at post-mortems carried out on former workers between 1962 and 1991, but was later extended to cover former workers at nuclear establishments at Harwell, Aldermaston and Springfields.

Redfern also examined research studies, sponsored by the Medical Research Council, on bones taken from more than 6,000 people, many of them babies, and spanning two decades.

In these cases, researchers were looking for evidence of strontium 90, a radioactive element that accumulates in bones, which scientists in the 1950s thought might be absorbed in harmful amounts through the atmosphere or the food chain.

The inquiry found that organs from 64 former Sellafield workers were removed by pathologists for analysis between 1960 and 1991.

In addition, organs taken from 12 workers at other nuclear sites were analysed at, or at the request of, Sellafield. The inquiry also found evidence of other individuals whose organs were analysed at Sellafield.

Tissue removed and retained for research included that taken from livers, lungs, vertebrae, ribs, lymph nodes, spleens, kidneys, femurs, testes, brains, hearts and tongues.

"The organs were actually removed from the body by the pathologist or a mortuary technician," Redfern said. "No payment was made."

Research on the tissue was carried out openly by doctors at Sellafield, and the results were presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

The central issue under consideration by Redfern was whether the studies carried out on the tissues was legal.

According to the Human Tissue Act of 1961, pathologists were allowed to take organ and tissue samples as long as they had no reason to believe that the deceased person had not objected to this use when alive, or that any surviving relatives had not objected. Permission was not explicitly needed, only a lack of objection.

In 2004, after an inquiry into the scandal at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, where organs and other tissues were removed from hundreds of infants without adequate permission, the law was changed to require doctors to expressly ask for permission from relatives before retaining organs for research.

"The report finds that there was a lack of ethical consideration of the implications of the research work the industry was doing, that there was limited supervision undertaken, and that relationships between pathologists, coroners and the Sellafield medical officers became too close," Huhne said.

In a statement issued today, Redfern said coroners had made several mistakes, including not communicating with the families of the deceased and failing to explain why a post mortem had been ordered or what it would entail.

"There is no time limit on grief, nor on apologies," Huhne said. "I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt regret, and to apologise to the families and relatives of those involved.

"I hope that the publication of today's report goes some way toward providing the closure they deserve. The events described in the inquiry should never have happened in the first place.

"We have learned the lessons of the past. The law on human tissue has been reviewed, and there is now a rigorous regulatory system in place, in which both the public and professionals have confidence."

Mike Clancy, the deputy general secretary of the nuclear union Prospect, said historic errors of judgment had been made, but that the Redfern inquiry provided safeguards against any repetition. "Nobody would question the value of medical research into potential health risks to the industry's employees and close neighbours," he said.

"Such research is clearly in the public interest and there is nothing remotely sinister about it. But that does not in any way justify the removal of tissue without appropriate consent."

Peter Furness, the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, said: "We believe that the work was undertaken in good faith, in the understanding that it was work with potential to benefit the population of the UK as a whole.

"The report acknowledges that it was not done in secret and it helped to improve radiation protection procedures. It took place many years ago, when today's standards and procedures were not in place.

"Nevertheless, we fully acknowledge that post-mortem tissue should not have been removed in this way. We deeply regret that the discovery that tissue was removed without knowledge or consent has caused distress to the bereaved."