In rare feat, two hospitals in Kovai swap liver donors, save two lives
The patients, aged 59 from Salem and 53 from Tiruppur respectively admitted in GEM and Ramakrishna hospitals, were in dire need of liver transplants. Although their respective wives were ready to donate, they could not due to blood group incompatibility.
In what the doctors termed a 'rare stroke of opportunity', it was found that there was compatibility for a swap transplant. R Sundar, Managing Trustee, Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, said the authorisation committee for transplant in Coimbatore didn't give approval for the transplant initially and they had to approach the Madras High Court, which directed the committee to consider the representation as soon as possible and pass an order, following which things were set in motion and the surgery happened on July 3. Both the surgeries were performed under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme of the state government.
'Swap transplants are already regulated under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 2014, but inter-hospital coordination has added new layers of scrutiny,' said Dr P Praveen Raj, Director of GEM Hospitals.
Dr C Palanivelu, Chairman, GEM Hospital, said special clearance was needed from State Transplant Authority (TRANSTAN) to transport the organ from one hospital to the other. 'We also had to ensure synchronised surgeries and establish a real-time communication protocol between both hospitals,' he added.
Dr N Anand Vijay, Liver Transplant Surgeon - GEM Hospital, said real-time video feeds were established to monitor surgical progress. 'Dedicated ambulances equipped with cold chain systems were kept on standby, but both donors and recipients remained in their respective hospitals throughout, making this a true logistical marvel,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court steps in to safeguard twin foetuses of surrogate mother
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 29, 2025), invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction in favour of 19-week-old twin foetuses of a surrogate mother and decided to rectify a significant procedural lapse committed by their intending parents as well as the treating hospital before commencing the surrogacy process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took upon himself the responsibility of issuing the 'parentage order' required to be obtained by the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother, from a court of the first class magistrate or above, as mandated under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act of 2021. Stressing upon the usage of the words 'or above' in the legal provision, the judge agreed with advocate A. Shabnam Banu that the High Court too could issue the 'parentage order' in exceptional cases where the interests of the unborn babies, the surrogate mother as well as the intending parents had to be safeguarded. He directed the intending parents and the surrogate mother, involved in the case before him, to appear before the Master court, which functions in the High Court buildings, on August 1 for the purpose of recording their statements with respect to compliance of other procedures such as obtaining insurance coverage. He decided to pass further orders on the writ petitions filed by the intending couple as well as the treating hospital, after receipt of recorded statements from the Master court, on August 7. In the meantime, the hospital was directed to respond to a notice issued to it by the health department and submit a copy in the court. The judge pointed out that though the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act came into force on January 25, 2022, the statutory rules under it were framed much later and so, most people were still unaware of the procedures prescribed under it and its requirements were yet to percolate into the system. What is a parentage order? Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Act categorically states that no surrogacy clinic should initiate the surrogacy process unless the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother obtain a 'parentage order' which shall serve as the birth affidavit regarding the custody of the surrogate child/children after birth. The judge said, before issuing the 'parentage order,' the courts generally satisfy themselves that the intending parents/intending woman do not have any child, either born naturally or through adoption/surrogacy, and that the woman was incapable of having a child naturally due to a medical condition. The courts also ascertain whether the woman who had come forward to bear the foetus was willing to be a surrogate mother for the intending couple and that she had the consent of her husband too, if she was married. Further, she must undertake not to claim parental custody of the baby after he/she is born. The surrogate mother should also agree that the birth certificate could be granted in favour of the intending parents and the latter must also make a statement before the court that they would not abandon the child/children, born through surrogacy, for any reason whatsoever. Further, all parties concerned must assure the court that there was no commercial surrogacy involved and that sufficient insurance coverage too had been taken in favour of the surrogate mother for a period of 36 months to cover the postpartum delivery complications. Therefore, the 'parentage order' was a very important document aimed at declaring the intending couple as the lawful parents of the child/children to be born and it was essential to obtain it before the surrogacy process could be commenced by the treating hospital. The procedural lapse In the present case, the surrogacy process had been initiated without complying with the legal requirement, by Chennai-based GG Hospital which was a pioneer in fertility research. Its counsel contended the hospital had committed a 'bona fide mistake' without giving due attention to the provisions of the new law. The hospital intimated the failure to obtain 'parentage order' to the intending couple only on May 30, 2025 and by that time, the embryo transfer had taken place and the twin foetuses inside the surrogate mother's womb were already 11-weeks old, the court was told. To ensure the efforts taken by the court in the present case to safeguard the bodily autonomy of the surrogate mother and the interests of the unborn babies must not be misused by others in future, Justice Venkatesh made it clear his order could not be cited as a precedent.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Stillborn case: SHRC recommends compensation, filling of vacancies with medical staff
Flagging the shortage of staff in hospitals, the State Human Rights Commission on Monday observed the continuing delay in filling vacant posts and the non-creation of new posts were creating a crisis in the Tamil Nadu health sector. It further mentioned it was receiving complaints throughout the State regarding 'medical negligence' of doctors and hospital staff while treating the patients. 'More than 4,000 rural health nurse vacancies remain unfilled in 8,488 sub-health centres in Tamil Nadu. With 50% of the posts lying vacant, the workload of the rural health nurses in service has increased drastically,' SHRC member V. Kannadasan observed in an order. The Commission recommended the State government to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh to a pregnant woman's kin who was reportedly forced to clean up her blood before boarding an ambulance. Even as it appreciated various programmes of the State government, the Commission observed: 'Due to the shortage of doctors and nurses in government hospitals in various districts including Villupuram, there is a delay in providing immediate treatment to patients. Activists also criticise that there is only one doctor in many primary health centers. An environment has also emerged where government doctors are psychologically affected due to low salaries and high workload.' The Commission recommended the State government to take necessary steps to appoint more doctors, nurses and other medical staff, especially in Primary Health Centers in the village level round the clock throughout the State. It also recommended necessary steps to provide more ambulance services to give special attention to pregnant women to reach hospitals in time. The Commission also appreciated the efforts taken by the Tamil Nadu government on its achievement projects throughout the State and recalled the introduction of various flagship schemes for maternal and child health and control of infectious diseases. It also appreciated the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme and the Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam scheme. 'The government of Tamil Nadu is taking various steps to reduce maternal mortality. However, the target of reducing maternal mortality can be achieved only if there are sufficient numbers of obstetricians in hospitals,' the Commission said. The restrictions in the Chief Minister's Insurance Scheme should be removed, it said. Action should be taken on complaints that some private hospitals participating in the scheme are using the entire insurance amount and charging additional fees for it, it said. The Commission made these observations while dealing with a complaint from one K. Devamani. Her pregnant daughter K. Subulakshmi was admitted to Murugeri Primary Health Centre on April 26, 2021. While the 108 ambulance arrived to take her, auxiliary nurse midwife Prabhavathi from the PHC shouted at her and demanded that she cleaned up her blood from the bed before leaving. The ANM did not allow it even after the ambulance staff insisted that the patient was to be shifted out at once. Due to the delay, they were not able to reach the Government Medical College Hospital at Mundiyambakkam on time and the foetus did not survive. The patient also contracted COVID-19 infection. The complainant alleged inhumane actions on the part of government employees and further sought for an investigation into the incident. During the hearing, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine submitted a detailed report. It said the ANM had to attend to two patients simultaneously, one of them injured in an accident. It was submitted that the patient's attender was not forced to clean up the blood. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and also findings given in the enquiry report, the Commission said it was categorically established that the patient's had a stillborn due to inordinate delay in the Primary Health Centre where the patient and attender were asked to clean up the blood before boarding the ambulance.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Tamil Nadu suspends organ transplant licence for 2 private hospitals
Tamil Nadu's health department has temporarily suspended the kidney transplant licences of two private hospitals — Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital in Perambalur and Cethar Hospital in Trichy — following an internal inquiry based on complaints alleging the existence of a widespread illegal kidney trade racket, officials aware of the matter said on Thursday. Tamil Nadu suspends organ transplant licence for 2 private hospitals The preliminary probe was conducted by S Vineeth, director of Tamil Nadu Health Systems Reform Project (TNHSRP). Further investigation based on several statements circulated online by alleged kidney donors is currently underway, added the officials. The probe committee headed by Vineeth, comprised Dr R M Meenakshisundari, joint director (Legal), Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, Dr A Rajmohan, joint director of health services, Namakkal and Dr K Marimuthu, joint director of health services in Perambalur and Ariyalur. 'Based on the interim report filed by Dr Vineeth, the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services (DMS) invoked Section 16 (2) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, and ordered the temporary suspension of kidney transplant licences given to both hospitals,' a statement from the health department said. Health minister M Subramanian had on July 18 ordered an inquiry into the suspected kidney trafficking racket in Namakkal district. A police complaint was filed on the same day against a man identified as M Anandan on suspicion of brokering illegal kidney donations from poor labourers working in power loom units and dyeing mills in Pallipalayam in the last six months. Organ donations in the state are regulated by Transplant Authority of Tamil Nadu (TRANSTAN), which operates as per India's Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. 'Only voluntary organ donation is permissible. Any selling of any organs is a serious crime,' the health minister said last Friday, adding, 'Anyone found involved in such crime will face action.' The probe has not yet revealed those who have engaged and been complicit in the crime and how much money was allegedly given to the workers, added the officials quoted above.
