THE REDFERN REPORT
An investigation-based release on the Alder Hey issue was the official report of the Royal
Liverpool Children’s Inquiry, commonly known as the Redfern Report or the Alder
Hey Report (released in January 2001) -
the Inquiry was led by Chairman Michael Redfern, a practising barrister. The
Redfern Report was largely an investigative one, which attempted
to scrutinise the circumstances that eventually led to the unauthorised organ
retention scandal that involved Alder Hey and other medical institutions in
England. Moreover, the report analysed the management actions that were taken
by the institutions involved in response to the scandal and alsomade
recommendations to the Secretary of State, outlining possible judicious
approaches towards settling the issue.
 |
| Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1140000/images/_1144996_reportpa150.jpg |
The report revealed that over 105,000 organs and body parts
were stored in 2010 NHS (National Health Services) facilities around England,
as well as 480600 random samples of tissue taken from dead patients. Furthermore, the report
exposed the complacency of management staff at Alder Hey on numerous
occasions, in the opportunities they had to discipline Mr. van Velzen’s activities at post mortems. In its recommendations to the Secretary of
State, the report advised the initiation of an independent commission to
supervise the return of the illegally retained organs, highlighted the need for
a review of the Coroner’s system and
suggested the employment of bereavement counsellors for grieving
parents.
In the formulation of the report, the Inquiry Panel collated
evidence from witnesses such as hospital staff (including van Velzen himself),
experts in the fields of Medical Ethics and Human Rights and numerous parents
who were involved in the scandal – thus, the Panel
attempted to take on a largely analytical stance towards the issue by including
evidence from a wide range of sources and perspectives. Indeed, the range of
evidence allowed the report to give an all-rounded review of the scandal and
limited the margin for bias. The report also gave detailed accounts of specific
cases (child’s name, age, the organ retained) and shed light on the reactions
of the parents by quoting their many emotional remarks; this method of directly
communicating primary information to the reader allowed the report to maintain
its investigative purposes while positioning the reader to commiserate with the
helplessness of the parents involved.
However, certainly at times, the report puts forward a
more subjective stance, thus revealing the Panel’s view on
the issue. For one, the report seems to condemn the negligence of the hospitals and practitioners involved. Moreover, the expressive language employed in
the report’s statement, which alleges that Dick van Velzen ordered the
“unethical and illegal stripping of every organ from every child who had had a
post-mortem” also conveys a more emotional perspective. In epilogue, the report also seems to openly highlight the criminal culpability of Dick
van Velzen, indicating his behaviour as “aberrant” and advising that “he must
never practice again”. Yet in the end, the
report attempts to return to its largely reasoned tenor, by
specifically advising that “the reader can draw his or her own conclusion from
our close analysis of the evidence”.
During a time in which most media releases on the Alder Hey
scandal were explosive and ardent in nature, the Redfern Report was one of the few that attempted to convey the issue in an informative manner.
The epilogue of the Redfern report:
BIRTH OF A NEW BLOG.
Contrastingly, Jeanice Barcelo in her recent blog ’Birth of a New Earth' addresses the issue of the Alder Hey scandal in stark contrast to
the Redfern Report. She presents an extract from the natural news titled ”Hospitals Store Dead Childrens' Brains in Jars written by David Gutierrez which adopts a more biased and rather
exasperated perspective on what Jeanice herself believes is “sick and twisted
research”.
Dick van Velzen and many other medical
practitioners argue that they have a “moral right to use organs for research”
if it means increasing the possibility of saving lives. Undoubtedly, the
medical advancements in the treatment for certain diseases like congenital
heart disease would not have been possible if they hadn’t retained the hearts
for close examination. Despite the public dispute at the emergence of what occurred
at the Bristol Royal Infirmary and Alder Hey, we cannot disregard the fact that
these “libraries of human organs” have contributed to the profound knowledge
gained on these diseases. Furthermore Professor Robert Anderson also makes a valid argument that without
these hearts, “we would not be able to train the next generation of paediatric
cardiologists.” There's a reason why
doctors have retained these organs. It's evidently not for the benefit of
themselves but rather for the sake of our future generation.
The epilogue of the Redfern report:
 |
| Click on the image to enlarge |
BIRTH OF A NEW BLOG.
Contrastingly, Jeanice Barcelo in her recent blog ’Birth of a New Earth' addresses the issue of the Alder Hey scandal in stark contrast to
the Redfern Report. She presents an extract from the natural news titled ”Hospitals Store Dead Childrens' Brains in Jars written by David Gutierrez which adopts a more biased and rather
exasperated perspective on what Jeanice herself believes is “sick and twisted
research”.
Through a variety of techniques, Gutierrez attempts to evoke a sense of abhorrence
and repulsion towards the medical practitioners who have stripped away and
preserved the organs of a child without parental consent. By presenting the
readers with anecdotes of families like Hannah Cheevers and Natasha Luke who were
victims of this issue, Gutierrez is able to evoke a sense of sympathy towards these helpless families who
were oblivious to these organ retainments. He presents one mother who claims
that “it doesn’t feel like it’s really him there”, but rather that it felt
“like a shell” in order to highlight the distraught and emptiness the grieving
mother has suffered from this scandal.
Furthermore, Gutierrez attempts to evoke a sense
of disappointment towards the unjust approach of these hospital systems. The
pejorative terms utilised by the parents feeling “disgusted” that their son’s
brains were simply “disposed” of, further ignites a sense atrocity towards the hospitals
since these organ parts which were seen as holistic and sacred to these parents
were merely thrown away as though they were commonplace and useless. The
additional inclusion of statistical evidences “3000 children” secretly
harvested in Liverpool and “100 organs samples” stored for “more than 25 years” also
provides readers with an indication that this hasn’t just affected one or two children, but a staggering figure.
There is no doubt, Barcelo and Gutierrez are only a few of the many outraged people who believe that the reputation of the hospital systems have been slandered by the Alder Hey Scandal. Generally with most opinion pieces like these, it’s quite difficult to assess the reliability of the statistical content presented but nonetheless it does provide an insight into the perspectives of families who were victimised by this scandalous act.
There is no doubt, Barcelo and Gutierrez are only a few of the many outraged people who believe that the reputation of the hospital systems have been slandered by the Alder Hey Scandal. Generally with most opinion pieces like these, it’s quite difficult to assess the reliability of the statistical content presented but nonetheless it does provide an insight into the perspectives of families who were victimised by this scandalous act.
Cole Moretan, in his article 'Why did Professor Dick van Velzen think butchering babies was right?' adopts a rather objective
perspective, by presenting us with both sides to the Alder Hey Scandal. Through a more reasoned tone, Moretan is able to
convey the key point of views expressed by both the medical practitioners and
the public on the scandal. Unlike Barcelo and Gutierrez, Moretan provides an
insight into the perspective of medical practitioners like Professor Dick van
Velzen who retained these organs for the sake of helping and saving the lives
of children.
Whilst Moretan has presented the
readers with an indication of what the medical practitioners believe is
“morally” acceptable, he also presents us with the contradicting perspective of
the public outcry which adopts similar techniques to Barcelos' blog. He uses
powerful and emotional appeals to evoke a sense of sympathy for these families.
Nonetheless, there is no question that the gulf between public expectation and
medical practice will continue to remain at large- particularly with the large
controversial literatures out there. Both the blog and the newspaper
article are representations of the non-academic works of literature that does
not only evoke an emotional appeal to the readers but it also provides a
personal insight into the perspectives of the public. On the other hand, the
Redfern Report is certainly a more reliable source which adopts a largely official tenor throughout the piece, while allowing readers to form their own stance on the issue based on the information provided.