Anyone Can Profit from Your Body Parts But You

by on December 7, 2006 · 4 comments

My friend Kerry Howley has a fantastic piece on the bizarre state of the law regarding ownership of human body parts. Self-annointed “bioethicists” claim that we can’t give people the right to control what happens to their own body parts, because that could lead to a world in which body parts “become nothing more than chattel going to the highest bidder.”

And that would be bad because… well, it’s not clear why. Certainly, the research community hasn’t been shy about using their control over patients’ tissues to enrich themselves:

In the end, disputes of this kind always come back to John Moore’s million dollar spleen. Twenty years ago, UCLA School of Medicine Dr. David Golde told Moore his leukemia-ravaged spleen would have to go, and Moore agreed to have surgeons remove the organ. For years afterward, Moore would fly from his home in Seattle to UCLA, where Golde would check on his progress and take samples of sperm, blood, and bone marrow aspirate. Unbeknownst to Moore, his supposedly trashed spleen was teeming with biomedical treasure. Golde derived a commercial cell line from the disembodied organ, and proceeded to patent it. Eventually, Moore became suspicious at the steady stream of vague release forms he was being asked to sign. He investigated, caught Golde, and sued. In 1990, a California court ruled that Moore had no proprietary right to the blood and tissue taken from his body. By that time, Golde had sold the patent for $2 million.

So apparently, it’s ethical to make large profits from human body parts, but only if the patient who provided the body parts doesn’t get a penny of it. Sounds ethical to me.

Kerry’s article is worth reading in full.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14019452 Steve R.

    This article has three important underlying principles that we should further discuss.

    1. The marketer (doctor) asserts “ownership” to the property (body parts) to make money but leaves out the underlying owner. This also applies to to companies that aggrigate customer information and sell it to others but don’t pay royalties for the commercial use of a persons private information.

    2. “natural” products cannot be patented, yet again patent law appears to being broadened to allow patents that should not be granted.

    3. I have long been troubled concerning the relationship of many professors to academic institutions and government research efforts. It appears (through casual observation) that many researchers are personally profiting from research funded by the government or the institution. Research funded by the government belongs to the public domain. If funded by the instituion, to the institution.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14019452 Steve R.

    This article has three important underlying principles that we should further discuss.

    1. The marketer (doctor) asserts “ownership” to the property (body parts) to make money but leaves out the underlying owner. This also applies to to companies that aggrigate customer information and sell it to others but don’t pay royalties for the commercial use of a persons private information.

    2. “natural” products cannot be patented, yet again patent law appears to being broadened to allow patents that should not be granted.

    3. I have long been troubled concerning the relationship of many professors to academic institutions and government research efforts. It appears (through casual observation) that many researchers are personally profiting from research funded by the government or the institution. Research funded by the government belongs to the public domain. If funded by the instituion, to the institution.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    This is really just the tip of the iceberg, in the misuse of IP by Big Pharma. This particular case (or one extremely similar to it–I don’t remember the man’s name) is cover in Michael Perelman’s Excellent book Steal This Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity.

    What is amazing is: 1. The number of ways IP is being misused by Big Pharma 2. The Damage it is causing, in terms of lost treatments 3. How little it is covered in media

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    This is really just the tip of the iceberg, in the misuse of IP by Big Pharma. This particular case (or one extremely similar to it–I don’t remember the man’s name) is cover in Michael Perelman’s Excellent book Steal This Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity.

    What is amazing is:
    1. The number of ways IP is being misused by Big Pharma
    2. The Damage it is causing, in terms of lost treatments
    3. How little it is covered in media

Previous post:

Next post: