The case for caution - Being protective of human dignity in the face of corporate forces taking title to our DNA

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 166-169

  Brown, Barry ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMMODIFICATION; DNA SEQUENCE; ECONOMICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GENOME; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATENT; POLICY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

COMMODIFICATION; ENTREPRENEURSHIP; GENOME, HUMAN; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; PATENTS; PRIVATIZATION; PUBLIC POLICY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0035375583     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2001.tb00336.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. M.T. Danforth, "Cells, Sales and Royalties: The Patient's Right to a Portion of the Profits," Yale Law and Policy Review, 6 (1988) 179.
2. D.B. Resnik, "DNA Patents and Human Dignity," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29, no. 2 (2001): 152-65, at 163.
3. Id. at 152
4. Id. at 158-59.
5. Id. at 163.
6. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
7. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).
8. Id. at 515.
9. Resnik, supra note 2, at 157.
10. D.W. Brock, "The Human Genome Project and Human Identity," Houston Law Review, 29 (1992): 8.
11. Id. at 8.
12. Id. at 8.
13. Id. at 9.
14. Id. at 13.
15. Id. at 19.
16. The interrelationship among the advancement of individual property rights, individualism, and human dignity can be examined historically in thirteenth century England in a remarkable series of common law decisions and statutes of Parliament, perhaps the most notable of which is the statute Quia Emptores (1290), which broke the chain of subinfeudinations and formally sanctioned the creation of freehold estates.
17. See, e.g., Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991); Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 7150-7156.5.
18. Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 480 (6th Cir. 1991).
19. Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7153(a)(1); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1606. As Judge Mosk points out, neither statute means "that a person cannot sell his blood or, by implication, that his blood is not his property ... organs and blood [are] property that can be sold in a variety of circumstances." Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479, 518 (Cal. 1990) (Mosk, J., dissenting).
20. See, e.g., Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991); Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 7150-7156.5.
21. Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991).
22. Davis v. Davis, 842 SW2d 588 (Tenn. 1992); A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000).
23. Hecht v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
24. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479, 512 (Cal. 1990).