Question: Can you explain what the role of a pathologist is?

Prof Chris Foster: The most important distinction that must be made in the minds of politicians is between autopsy-derived tissues and specimens that enter the laboratory from all other sources whether blood, sputum, urine or following surgical biopsy. 

These are not of equal importance or relevance, either to the Bill or to medical research. 

Surgically derived tissues are the lifeblood of academic medical research. 

This Bill will inhibit their use in the United Kingdom. I am concerned that lay people and politicians fully understand what a pathologist is – and what he or she does.

We are not people walking around in green aprons and Wellington boots. That is the 19th century view that a pathologist is somebody who dissects cadavers.

In the most part, that is not what we do. Autopsy practice may have the same name, but actually what we do is about as close as an airplane pilot is to somebody who drives a horse and cart.

The Human Tissue Bill has been set up against this inaccurate preconception of pathologists and it is totally wrong.

Pathology, otherwise known as "Laboratory Medicine", underpins all diagnostic medicine in this country. For example, if you go to your doctor because you aren’t feeling well he will do a blood test. That specimen of blood goes to a pathologist. If you have a cough, she or he may get you to cough into a pot before he gives you antibiotics. That specimen goes to a pathologist for analysis of the cells in your sputum.

These are all different pathologies. Without any of that information you cannot be treated appropriately. There is no difference between the blood and sputum or a breast biopsy performed to exclude cancer. Pathology is the analysis of tissues that underpins every aspect of modern diagnosis management.

The Human Tissue Bill will now destroy all potential advances in diagnostic tests that would otherwise be made. It will allow other countries to continue advancing past the United Kingdom with respect to new advances, better diagnoses and better management of patients.

Please note that, with respect to the impact of this Bill, I have not mentioned autopsies or autopsy-derived tissues.

Question: What Is the difference between diagnostic and autopsy tissues?

Prof Chris Foster: What we should be talking about is diagnostic tissues but the Human Tissue Bill is talking about autopsy tissues and has confused one with the other to the detriment of diagnosis and patient management.

The two are not the same. In the main, as academicians striving to improve diagnoses and patient management, we do not need autopsy tissues.

As far as my research is concerned, you can have every cadaver and keep it - and it wouldn’t affect me one bean!

Politicians have applied the Bill to all human tissues  - whether blood, urine, saliva, solid tissues or autopsy tissues.

The effect will be to kill stone dead all tissue-based medical research advances in this country. That is what has already happened and is going to continue happening.

For example if you want breast cancer treated efficiently, there are other countries in Europe that will do it far better because they are able to do the tissue analysis that we can no longer do - and use those tissues to develop better diagnostic tests and clinical managements.

Question: Do doctors object to the whole of the Bill?