The removal by doctors of organs from the dead without the consent of their families was condemned in the high court today.

At the start of the legal battle for compensation by more than 2,000 people who claim their relatives' organs were removed without consent by the NHS, counsel for the families, Richard Lissack QC, described the practice as morally, ethically and legally "objectionable".

The 2,140 claimants say that health trusts across the country have offered them £1,000 in compensation, compared with £5,000 given to families in the Alder Hey organs scandal.

Mr Lissack told the court that it had been common practice for doctors to remove and retain organs from the dead for a variety of purposes.

He said while this in itself was not objectionable, it was when done "without the knowledge, let alone the agreement, of the relatives."

Mr Lissack told the judge, Mr Justice Gage: "We submit that the practice was objectionable on three levels - morally, ethically and legally."

He said that although the families sought a fair level of compensation, no amount of money could mitigate the trauma they had been through.

The QC insisted that the legal action was not about demonising doctors.

But he added: "This case is about righting a great wrong, we suggest, done to many thousands over many years by a medical profession which either ignored or failed to understand or understood but avoided the claim of law."

Mr Lissack noted that the 1961 Human Tissue Act required a hospital to satisfy itself that there was a lack of objection to certain uses of tissues and organs taken from the dead.

The government is currently introducing new laws to ban the retention of organs without consent in the wake of the inquiry into the scandal at Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool.

Under the human tissue bill, doctors removing organs without consent would face up to three years in prison and unlimited fines.

The NHS litigation authority has said that such practices had been widespread in the health service until quite recently.

But Mr Lissack said this defence "made plain that during the 1980s and 1990s the question of removal of material during postmortem and its retention was, in effect, a non-issue for those working in the NHS.

"Organ retention did not feature on the medical profession's radar through the period with which we are concerned."

The QC said it was "crystal clear" that the "deliberate policy" had been not to tell parents the whole truth.

"This case provides evidence of a failure on the part of clinicians to make the requisite inquiries of parents to see if they objected," he said.

Doctors had worked on the principle "that this was something not to be raised with the parents". Mr Lissack said: "They knew, or ought to have known, had they told the parents the truth, the parents may have objected."

The hearing is expected to last two weeks.