THE revised Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance 2007, currently under review by the cabinet, is rife with technical problems, seems rushed and does not consider issues in implementation. With new terminology, it paves the way for organ trade and closes the doors on justice, while absolving culprits of their heinous crime.

The government seems under pressure under the directives of the Chief Justice to pass the law in whatever form possible. The lawmakers show an entire lack of understanding about cadaver and live donor transplantation, allowing organ trade, defining governing committees without transparent mechanisms, entrusting courts without the relevant capacity, and not offering any cover for exploitation for “kidney marriages.”

The last clause empowers the president to remove “any difficulty” in “giving effect to any provision of this Ordinance,” which begs the question as to how the president or someone on his behalf can decide on such a technical matter.

A critical analysis of the 23-page draft law reveals that in its rather obscure “Decisions” section, the final word is left to the federal health and law ministries, while the thrust seems to be towards promulgating it as a presidential ordinance, without a debate in the assembly. One decision stands out, which allows foreign patients, in “cases of emergency and limited number,” to solicit donations from Pakistani citizens.

Although this does not appear as a clause, the annex does not state its exclusion. Another decision maintains a 30-day notice period to the Monitoring Authority, for moving court by an aggrieved person.

Experts fear that these decisions could find their way into the law later.

In case of non-availability of a related donor, Section 3(2) allows anyone related or not related, to donate and be “compensated.” Bonded labour exploited for kidney donations can easily fit this criterion.

Cadaver transplants fill the gap in such cases. For spousal transplants, there is no check for a minimum period of stable marriage, and divorces after transplantation.

For cadaver transplants, two entirely segregate Evaluation Committees [Section 5(1)] are needed. Single committee members may collude to remove organs from a person who is alive. A patient in a hospital has to be declared brain dead, before organ removal.

The other committee, comprising a social worker, a judge or a civil society member should decide upon the appropriateness of transplantation, donor selection and waiting list management — who benefit from the donated organs.

A Federal level Monitoring Authority [Section 8] has the responsibility of checking all transplant-related institutions, which is not practical. The body having a transparent nomination procedure, should only be entrusted with policy setting, and should include a bioethicist, and a health policy management expert.

Contrary to the entire spirit of the law, Section 11 and 16 deal with absolving culprits. The court for “any adequate and special reasons” can reduce the imprisonment sentence to “less than two years and a fine less than ten thousand rupees.” It can even absolve anyone for an action “taken in good faith.”

In a country infamous for organ trade, the Good Samaritan law may be abused. The clause further protects the government against any legal action for “any damage caused or likely to be caused for anything which is done with due care in good faith.”

Also, being an extremely technical matter, a tribunal is needed that understands the art and science of transplantation.

The writer is CEO of Subh-e-Nau, an environment and public health concern.