Mr. KNEIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The statement urges the enactment of the proposed Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, but the amendment, I would like to suggest, would be of one or two forms.

The bill itself in section 9(e) proposes the amendment of our existing law with respect to requirement that there be a permit for transportation of dead bodies or a part thereof.

As to include in that law a provision that that law, relating to transportation of parts of bodies, shall not be applicable to tissue banks or to persons transporting tissues subject to regulations made pursuant to the Tissue Bank Act or the District of Columbia Anatomical Gift Act.

My amendment is this: In the first eight sections of the bill, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, there is no authority for the District of Columbia Council to make regulations with respect to that activity under the concurrent Anatomical Gift Act. So I would like to suggest that either the first section of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act be amended by adding a subsection saying that "the District of Columbia Council is authorized to make regulations to carry out the purpose of this act." Or, as an alternative, in order to maintain uniformity of the act, put such an amendment in the existing Tissue Bank Law. I praise Mr. Cooper for suggesting this amendment. Either one would best serve the interest of the District of Columbia Council and give them authority to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, and treat it in a like manner as the District government has already had regulations to carry out the Tissue Bank Act.

Aside from that point, I have nothing to add.

(The prepared statement and proposed amendment of Robert F. Kneipp follow:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, LEGISLATION AND OPINIONS DIVISION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT

Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today on behalf of Mayor Walter E. Washington and Charles T. Duncan, Esquire, Corporation Counsel, D.C., both of whom have been invited by the Committee to express their views on S. 2999, a bill "To authorize, in the District of Columbia, the gift of all or part of the human body after death for specified purposes."

The donation of human tissue in the District of Columbia for use in reconstructive medicine and surgery, and for research and teaching in reconstructive medicine and surgery, presently is subject to the provisions of the District of Columbia Tissue Bank Act enacted in 1962. At that time, the enactment of such a law was a very considerably improvement over the then existing situation, since District of Columbia law then operated to prevent or seriously inhibit the use of portions of dead human bodies in reconstructive medicine and surgery, even though the decedent, while he was alive, desired that after his death portions of his body be put to such use in order to benefit persons still living, and took steps to authorize the use of his body for such a humanitarian purpose. In recognition of the need to improve that situation, the then Board of Commissioners in 1961 strongly urged the enactment of what later became the Tissue Bank Act in order to encourage and aid the development of reconstructive medicine and surgery and the development of medico-surgical research. The Commissioners were supported in thelr effort by a number of military and Federal health agencies, hospitals, and civic and medical groups. There was no opposition to the bill and it became law on September 10, 1962.

I think I may say, as one who helped draft the Tissue Bank Act, that it represented the best thinking at that time. In 1968, however, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved a Uniform Anatomical Gift Act which offers a number of advantages

not to be found in the District of Columbia Tissue Bank Act. First, the Uniform Act applies to whole bodies and parts thereof, rather than to portions of bodies, as does the Tissue Bank Act. The classes of persons who may make anatomical gifts and who may receive such gifts are somewhat broader than is provided by the Tissue Bank Act. The purposes for which such a gift can be made also are broader than the purpose of the Tissue Bank Act, which limited the making of anatomical gifts to licensed tissue banks. The methods for making any such gift also are greater in number and more convenient to the donor than under the Tissue Bank Act, and the Uniform Act specifies with greater particularity the rights and duties of persons receiving anatomical gifts and physicians involved in the giving of any such gift. Perhaps most important, the fact that the proposed Uniform Anatomical Gift Act for the District of Columbia will be substantially similar to like Acts in forty of the States will operate, I believe, to encourage the giving of anatomical gifts while at the same time removing some of the uncertainties which tend to arise in any case where the law of one jurisdiction is different from that of another.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the enactment of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act for the District of Columbia will considerably improve the situation which presently exists in the District, both from a medical and legal standpoint, and accordingly I recommend, on behalf of Mayor Washington and Corporation Counsel Charles T. Duncan, that this Committee favorably report S. 2999.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TISSUE BANK ACT PROPOSED BY ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Amend subsection (b) of section 4 of the District of Columbia Tissue Bank Act (76 Stat. 535; D.C. Code, sec. 2-253) by striking out "prescribing, without limitation," and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "to carry out the purposes of this Act and the District of Columbia Anatomical Gift Act, including, without limitation, rules and regulations prescribing."

As so amended, subsection (b) of section 4 of the Tissue Bank Act will read as follows:

"(b) The Commissioners are authorized, after public hearing, to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act and the District of Columbia Anatomical Gift Act, including, without limitation, rules and regulations prescribing (1) the terms and conditions urder which a tissue bank license may be issued and renewed; (2) the fees to be paid for the issuance and renewal of such licenses; (3) the duration of such licenses; (4) the grounds for suspension and revocation of such licenses; (5) the operation of tissue banks; (6) the conditions under which tissue may be processed, preserved, stored, and transported; and (7) the making, keeping, and disposition of records by tissue banks or by other persons processing, preserving, storing, or transporting tissue." (New language in italics).

Senator GOODELL. Mr. Whelton, would you like to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD L. WHELTON, CORONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. WHELTON. I am Dr. Richard Whelton, the District of Columbia Coroner and I am in favor, and have been, of the adoption of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

I refer to the points brought out by the eminent medical authorities here this morning, and further state that it would probably mean increased availability of whole bodies for anatomical dissection to medical schools.

My office is the primary source of dissection material for medical schools. We have three in this jurisdiction and up until this time, outside of specific declarations of donating their body to a medical school, unclaimed bodies can be the only other source of anatomical

dissection materials. This is individuals who die who no one claims and no one proposed burial for.

The "c" I believe on the card would open the door for the release of such bodies without a time delay period, which amounts to months sometimes, in an attempt to establish contact with relatives as to what they are going to do about the disposition of the body.

I might further add that with the passage of this act that there may very likely be more demands for cadaver materials.

My office at the present time is not staffed with the technical or medical personnel to remove these organs for transplanting. The obtaining material of bodies for research is done routinely in my office. We participate in many local and Federal institutions in providing organs and organ parts for research material. This is done with a great deal of requirement of technical skills for research, but when you speak of transplanting tissues or organs, there is a preparation and preservation of this material, the facilities for which are not available in my office at the present time.

Senator GOODELL. Dr. Schepers, do you have a statement?

STATEMENT OF DR. GERRIT SCHEPERS, CHIEF, BUREAU OF LABORATORIES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Dr. SCHEPERS. I didn't come with any prepared statement. I responded to the request that I give answers. For practical purposes, one of my functions is to supervise any institutional purpose where tissues or organs may be removed or processed or studied in tissue banks, blood banks, or eye banks.

Senator GOODELL. For the record, will you identify your official capacity.

Dr. SCHEPERS. I am chief of the Bureau of Laboratories of the District government. I receive applications once a year for renewal of licenses to operate tissue banks and then inspect the premises to see if proper precautions are taken to identify tissues and the sources of the tissues and with a proper disposition of the tissues, and whether the proper bacteriological techniques are employed to assure that the tissues are not contaminated and so on.

Senator GOODELL. Do you have any problem with the provision making 18 the donation age, in spite of the fact that it is a departure from existing laws of the District of Columbia as I understand it?

Mr. KNEIPP. I believe that I don't understand the question, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GOODELL. Existing laws regarding wills in the District of Columbia provide that it shall be age 18 for a female and age 21 for a male.

Mr. KNEIPP. Oh, yes; that is true. A male has to be at least 21 years of age in order to make a will, while a female needs only to be 18. The Uniform Law, of course, will make it 18.

Senator GOODELL. Is that because women mature faster than men? Mr. KNEIPP. I think it has to do with the marriage law, too. Senator GOODELL. Do you favor the 18 for men and women in its place, for this law?

Mr. KNEIPP. I have no objections to that, sir. The problem, I suppose, is that by lowering the age to 18 you get better material available, but I have no particular objection to it.

Senator GOODELL. Do you think that the present law and its civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized transplants or for autopsies are adequate in the District and offer any remedy in that respect?

Mr. KNEIPP. It is a little bit difficult, Mr. Chairman, to say precisely what is covered by existing law with respect to this kind of thing. There is a provision which prohibits cremation, embalming, preserving the dead body within 4 hours after death or before the issue of a death certificate and without having a permit signed by the Director of Public Health in case the coroner has an interest in the matter, unless that certificate has been approved by him.

The penalty for taking action in violation of that is $200 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days or both.

The laws that I am aware of are those with respect to the coroner and how these penalties may apply to autopsies. I am not in a position to state at this moment, but it would appear that nobody can take any action with respect to a body before the death certificate has been issued by the Director of Public Health. That might be in violation of the existing statutes.

Senator GOODELL. Do you have any views with respect to the question of perhaps making some public funds available for promotion of a donor card distribution for use of a donor card by private individuals?

Mr. KNEIPP. I think that question possibly should be better directed to the Director of Public Health. I don't believe that any of us are in a position to answer that. It is a budgetary matter that would have to be answered by the mayor or his agent. I am not in a position to answer it; no, sir.

The Director of Public Health might have funds available which could be used for that purpose, but I am not aware of it.

Senator GOODELL. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I think that covers the field pretty well. I appreciate your being here today. Mr. Godfrey Munter.

Mr. Munter, we appreciate your patience in being here this morning and waiting and we are very pleased to have you with us. Mr. MUNTER. Thank you, sir.

Senator GOODELL. You may proceed in any way you wish. Do you have a prepared statement to submit?

Mr. Munter. I do not have a written statement, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF GODFREY MUNTER, MEMBER, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

Mr. MUNTER. My name is Godfrey Munter and I have been practicing law in the District of Columbia for 50 years. I am a past president of the District of Columbia Bar Association and for quite a number of years had the honor of being a judge in one of the local

courts.

I have been a member of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws for 20 years, and I have had a little something to do with this Uniform Act. My duty as a Commissioner from the District of Columbia is twofold.

First, to attend the meetings and promulgate these uniform acts and that is, as the Senator knows, quite an arduous undertaking at

times. These acts do not come out spontaneously and it usually takes from 2 to 4 years. The commercial code, for example, took 10 years. Many of these acts take 4 or 5 years and they are discussed not only at the national conference, which lasts a week each year preceding the meeting of the American Bar Association, but also there is a special session to discuss these acts.

Now, in addition to attempting to attend meetings and participating in discussion and promulgating these acts, one of the functions of the Commission is to see that the acts are actually adopted by the legislatures. That is one of the reasons I am here today, to urge upon you, the enactment of this very salutary legislation.

Anything that I could say in support of the provision of the act would be cumulative. I have heard a great deal from learned doctors on the subject and I don't think there is really anything that I can add, except to recommend that the legislation be enacted as soon as possible.

There is, however, one question that the chairman raised awhile ago about the discrimination against women in not allowing them to sign these cards or to make a donation before they are 21 years of age. The Uniform Probate Code, which has also been enacted or approved by the American Bar Association last year, is coming out with a provision that anybody 18 years of age, regardless of sex, has a right to make a will. That is a salutary provision in this legislation, that there be no discrimination against women. We all know that women are just as competent at 18 years of age as men are and, of course, if we go back to the old English times we can see that there might have been some reason why they weren't emancipated as they are now. That is the only addition I can make, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GOODELL. You recommend that the age be 18 forMr. MUNTER. Yes, for everybody, which I think is a very great improvement and removal of a rank discrimination against women. Senator GOODELL. Mr. Munter, we appreciate very much your testimony in support of this legislation and the work that you put in to developing it and hope we will be able to fulfill your desire that it will go on the books very soon.

Mr. MUNTER. I should add that the commissioners from the State of New York, Mr. Albert and Mr. Schwartz, are very active members of the Conference.

Senator GOODELL. I hope they are going to be able to succeed with the New York State Legislature this year.

Mr. MUNTER. Thank you, sir.

Senator GOODELL. I want to express my appreciation to all the witnesses we have heard this morning. Your testimony will be extremely valuable to this committee, and I believe will be helpful in getting early enactment of the legislation.

The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was concluded.)