Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T21:21:14.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case for Caution — Being Protective of Human Dignity in the Face of Corporate Forces Taking Title to Our DNA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Barry Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirteen years ago, commenting on the treatment of the human body and its cell lines as patentable commodities, Mary Taylor Danforth wrote:

Research with human cells that results in significant economic gain for the researcher and no gain for the patient offends the traditional mores of our society in a manner impossible to quantify Such research tends to treat the human body as a commodity — a means to a profitable end. The dignity and sanctity with which we regard the human whole, body as well as mind and soul, are absent when we allow researchers to further their own interests without the patient's participation by using a patient's cells as the basis for a marketable product.

In his insightful article, David Resnik would have us travel further down the path of allowing the patenting of DNA in order to advance scientific research and the welfare of humankind. Dr. Resnik suggests that that the acquisition of such proprietary rights in DNA research must proceed cautiously

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Summer 2001 , pp. 166 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Danforth, M.T., “Cells, Sales and Royalties: The Patient's Right to a Portion of the Profits,” Yale Law and Policy Review, 6 (1988) 179.Google Scholar
Resnik, D.B., “DNA Patents and Human Dignity,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29, no. 2 (2001): 152–65, at 163.Google Scholar
Id. at 152.Google Scholar
Id. at 158–59.Google Scholar
Id. at 163.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
Id. at 515.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 2, at 157.Google Scholar
Brock, D.W., “The Human Genome Project and Human Identity,” Houston Law Review, 29 (1992): 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 9.Google Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 19.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991); Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 7150–7156.5.Google Scholar
Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 480 (6th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991). Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 7150–7156.5.Google Scholar
Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
Davis v. Davis, 842 SW2d 588 (Tenn. 1992). A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000).Google Scholar
Hecht v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479, 512 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar