Gujarat defends organ transplantation policy

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat government on Friday defended its policy of giving priority to local people in organ transplantation from cadavers and submitted that as the number of organs donated is abysmally low compared to demand, the government faces a moral dilemma in giving priority.
The state government is facing a challenge to its policy prioritizing domiciles of Gujarat in transplantation of organs from cadaver donations from three persons - a woman who has Canadian citizenship and has been living in Gujarat for the last 13 years and needs a kidney transplant, a Madhya Pradesh woman needing a liver transplant and a person from Jharkhand who has settled in Ahmedabad for the last seven years and is awaiting a kidney. They questioned the policy first for not being considered for registration and then being in a queue with a Gujarat domicile patient given priority over them.
Defending the policy, government pleader Manisha Shah submitted, "The number of organs donated against demand is abysmally low, so there is a moral dilemma. We are not turning down any patient...We are insisting on domicile when it is cadaver donation. When resources are limited, the state government can prioritize or else where would its own people go? There is no other option." She further submitted, "Due to shortage of organs donated, there is always a moral dilemma involved and there is no denying this. Every country wants to serve the interests of its citizens first, and would love to do so in every manner possible."
The pleader argued that legislation for organ transplantation has been enacted to curb commercialization and amid a shortage of organs, if a priority policy is not adopted, it would lead to transplant tourism.
“If organ transplantation tourism happens and an influx of registrations takes place at one place, those who are actually in need and are waiting will never get achance. Therefore there is a policy of priority and urgency,” she submitted.
In the case of the Canadian citizen, who was refused registration for want of a domicile certificate, the HC had asked the government whether domicile is more important than the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Besides, the HC in these cases asked the state government if it can give priority on the basis of how critical the condition of the patient is.
The government replied that it faces a moral dilemma at every stage, but its policy seeks to address thequestion because it has an urgent list and a standard list looking at the condition of patients.
Senior advocate G M Joshi, who appeared for the Canadian citizen, argued that there is no rule by which the government can refuse a domicile certificate to his client. If she gets a domicile certificate, she will be covered by the policy of priority.
For the patient from Jharkhand, advocate Kunan Naik questioned the government’s policy to make separate lists, though no provision for this has been made in the law. He submitted that separate lists for local and outsiders are prepared through executive fiat under the guise of state guidelines, whereas the law does not discriminate against any citizen of the country because priority here cannot be attached the way it is given in education or sports.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Biren Vaishnav reserved the judgment.