Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:04:58.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proprietary interests in organs in limbo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Remigius N Nwabueze
Remigius N Nwabueze*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
*
Remigius N Nwabueze, SJD (Toronto), Associate Professor of Law, Southampton Law School, Faculty of Business, Law and Art, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A host of activities jeopardise the safety of an excised organ: an organ transported across local, regional, state or national boundaries could be damaged or lost in transit. A thief might snatch the organ from the possession of the transplant team; a transplant surgeon could use the organ for the treatment of their relative or patient, a celebrity or an influential political figure, instead of transplanting the organ into the properly selected and designated recipient. Also, the organ could be damaged maliciously by a third party. Furthermore, a live donor might change their mind after the organ had been retrieved, or the intended recipient might die before a scheduled transplant, after the organ had been retrieved from a live donor. In the above cases, the organ is in a state of limbo, prompting an enquiry into the appropriate remedial responses of the law for a claimant. Non-proprietary remedies might be helpful in the above scenarios, but fail to provide the necessary continuing control. Accordingly, the first section of this paper considers whether positive law recognises the existence of proprietary interests in excised organs; absent such protection, this paper suggests that the law should recognise proprietary interests in excised organs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 279 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2016

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.)

Footnotes

*

For constructive and helpful criticism of the draft of this paper, I thank my colleagues at Southampton Law School, Professors Peter Sparkes, Hazel Biggs and John Coggon and Dr David Gurnham; and Dr Antonia Cronin at Kings College London. I am also grateful for the constructive comments from the two anonymous reviewers. All errors and omissions are mine.

References

1. For definition of organ: Human Tissue Authority (HTA) Code of Practice 2: Donation of Solid Organs for Transplantation (London: Department of Health, 2013);Google Scholar hereafter, Code of Practice 2.

2. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB) Human Bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research (London: NCB, 2011) p 45.Google Scholar

3. As in Germany: Shaw, D ‘Lessons from the German organ donation scandal’ (2013) 14 J Intensive Care Soc'y 200;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Norrie, Km ‘Human tissue transplants: legal liability in different jurisdictions’ (1985) 34 Int'l & Comp L Q 442 at 467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Gorner, P and Baniak, P ‘Mantle's new liver: a question of ethics: experts find no favoritism after speedy transplant’ Chicago Tribune 9 June 1995 at 3N.Google Scholar

5. C Coates ‘Casey's quick transplant renews ethics debate: medicine: Pennsylvania governor got heart and liver within 24 hours of getting on list, under guidelines giving priority to those who need multiple organs’ Los Angeles Times 25 July 1993.

6. US v Arora, 806 F Supp 1091 (Md DC 1994).

7. Price, D Human Tissue in Transplantation and Research: A Model Legal and Ethical Donation Framework (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010) p 272.Google Scholar

8. Goldstein, J ‘A kidney is given away, and patient can't sue to get it back, court says’ The New York Sun 15 December 2006.Google Scholar

9. NCB, above n 2, p 195.

10. Laurie, G Genetic Privacy: A Challenge to Medico-Legal Norms (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002) p 316;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Quigley, M ‘Propertisation and commercialisation: on controlling the uses of human biomaterials’ (2014) 77 Mod L Rev 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Moore v Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal 3d 120 at 181 (Sup Ct 1990).

12. Cronin, Aj and Price, D ‘Directed organ donation: is the donor the owner?’ (2008) 3 Clin Ethics 127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Gold, Er Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

14. Dickenson, D Body Shopping (Oxford: Oneworld, 2008);Google Scholar Andrews, L and Nelkin, D Body Bazaar: The Market for Human Tissue in the Age of Biotechnology (New York: Crown, 2001).Google Scholar

15. Skene, L ‘Proprietary rights in human bodies, body parts and tissue; regulatory contexts and proposals for new laws’ (2002) 22 Legal Stud 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, 438 F 3d 214 (2nd Cir 2006).

17. Dickens, Bm ‘Living tissue and organ donors and property law; more on Moore’ (1992) 8 J Contemp Health L & Pol'y 73 at 88–92.Google ScholarPubMed

18. Dickens, Bm ‘Legal and judicial aspects of post-mortem organ donation’ in Collins, Gm et al (eds) Procurement, Preservation, and Allocation of Vascularized Organs (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997) p 356.Google Scholar

19. R v Coleridge, 2 B & Ald 806; Coke, E Institutes of the Laws of England, vol 3 (London: W Rawlins, 1860) p 203;Google Scholar see also Hill, M Ecclesiastical Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33rd edn, 2007) p 175.Google Scholar

20. Hill, above n 19, pp 1–26; Chapman, Cr Ecclesiastical Courts, Their Officials and Their Records (Dursley: Lochin, 1992) pp 5–10.Google Scholar

21. Milsom, Sfc Historical Foundations of the Common Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22nd edn, 1981) p 24;Google Scholar Outhwaite, Rb The Rise and Fall of the English Ecclesiastical Courts, 1500–1860 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

22. Dickens, in Collins, above n 18, p 343.

23. Brotherton v Cleveland, 923 F 2d 477 at 481 (6th Cir 1991).

24. Pierce v Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, 1872 WL 3575 1 at 7 (FNI) (RI).

25. Ibid, at 7; Phillips v Montreal General Hospital [1908] XIV La Revue Legale 159 at 164.

26. However, see Matthews, P ‘Whose body? People as property’ (1983) 36 Current Legal Probs 193 at 198.Google ScholarPubMed

27. Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2010] QB 1 at 14.

28. Dwenger v Geary, 14 NE 903 (1888): ‘The sepulture of the dead has, in all ages of the world, been regarded as a religious rite. The place where the dead are deposited all civilized nations, and many barbarous ones, regard, in some measure at least, as consecrated ground. In the old Saxon tongue the burial-ground of the dead was “God's acre”.’

29. Sperling, D Posthumous Interests: Legal and Ethical Perspectives (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008) p 90.Google Scholar

30. In R v Sharpe [1857] Dears & Bell 159.

31. Gilbert v Buzzard [1820] 2 Hagg Con 332; R v Feist [1858] D & B 590.

32. R v Lynn [1788] 2 TR 732.

33. Haynes’ Case [1614] 77 ER 1389; Exelby v Handyside (Dr Handyside's case) [1749] 2 East PC 652; Williams v Williams [1882] 20 Ch D 659. Generally, Matthews, above n 26.

34. Haynes, above n 33, at 1389.

35. Ibid.

36. Sir Stephen, J A Digest of the Criminal Law (London: Macmillan, 55th edn, 1894), at 252 (Art 318).Google Scholar

37. 2 East PC 652, cited in Matthews, above n 26.

38. Phillips v Montreal General Hospital [1908] XIV La Revue Legale 159 at 162.

39. Matthews, above n 26; RF Martin Removal and Reinterment of Remains, 21 ALR 2d, §3 (1952).

40. R v Kelly [1998] 3 All ER 741.

41. Ibid, at 749.

42. Another exception, discussed below, is the common law right of certain persons to possess a dead body for the purpose of burial – Williams v Williams [1882] 20 Ch D 659; R v Stewart [1840] 113 ER 1007 – and the coroner's right to lawful possession of a dead body for the purpose of an inquest: R v Bristol Coroner, ex p. Kerr [1974] QB 652.

43. Goodwin, M Black Markets: The Supply and Demand of Body Parts (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006) p 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. As in Urbanski v Patel [1978] 84 DLR (3d) 650 and Sirianni v Anna, 285 NYS 2d 709 (Sup Ct New York 1967).

45. Dobson v North Tynside Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 474 (CA).

46. Ibid, at 478.

47. Ibid, at 479.

48. Ibid, at 478.

49. Kelly, above n 40, at 750.

50. Whaley v Country of Tuscola, 58 F 3d 1111 (6th Cir 1995).

51. Ibid, at 1113.

52. Ibid, at 1116.

53. Ibid, at 1117; followed in Whaley v Saginaw Co., 941 F Supp 1483 (ED Mich 1996).

54. Dampier v Charter County of Wayne , 233 Mich App 714 at 731 (Mich Ct App 1999).

55. Ibid, at 735.

56. Brotherton v Cleveland, 923 F 2d 477 (6th Cir 1991).

57. Ohio Rev Code § 2108.60 permits a coroner to remove the corneas of autopsy subjects without consent, provided that the coroner had no knowledge of an objection by the deceased or the deceased's next of kin. Most states in the USA have this sort of ‘presumed consent’ statute for tissues: Goodwin, above n 43, pp 117–147.

58. Brotherton, above n 56, at 482; also Dampier v Wayne County, 592 NW 2d 809 (1999).

59. Piljak Estate v Abraham [2014] ONSC 2893.

60. Roche v Douglas [2000] WASC 146.

61. State v Powell, 497 So 2d 1188 at 1192–1193 (Fla Sup Ct 1986).

62. Kant, I Lectures on Ethics (trans L Infield) (Cambridge, MA: Hackett, 1963).Google Scholar

63. Munzer, Sr ‘Kant and property rights in body parts’ (1993) 6 Can J L & Jur 319.Google Scholar

64. Kant, above n 62, p 124.

65. Kant, I Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals in Gregor, M (ed) Practical Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996) p 37;Google Scholar Munzer, above n 63, at 326.

66. Price, above n 7, p 245.

67. Kant, above n 62, p 165.

68. Ibid, pp 166, 147–148.

69. Ibid, p 124.

70. Gregor, M (ed) Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003) p 177.Google Scholar

71. For exposition of Kant's philosophy: Russell, B History of Western Philosophy (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1946) pp 675–690.Google Scholar

72. See eg Munzer, above n 63; Chadwick, R ‘The market for bodily parts: Kant and duties to oneself’ (1989) 6 J Appl Phil 129–139;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Taylor, Js Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) pp 146–157.Google Scholar

73. Munzer, above n 63, at 325.

74. Chadwick, above n 72, at 133.

75. Taylor, above n 72, p 148.

76. Cohen, C ‘Selling bits and pieces of humans to make babies: The Gift of the Magi revisited’ (1999) 24 J Med & Phil 288 at 293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed However, Taylor argued that a rigorous analysis of Kant would come to the counterintuitive conclusion that Kant was equally against the donation of body parts: Taylor, above n 72, pp 153–155.

77. Kant, above n 62, p 116.

78. Kant, I The Metaphysics of Morals (trans M Gregor) (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. Ibid, p 423.

80. Taylor, above n 72, pp 149–150; Munzer, above n 63, at 321.

81. Doodeward v Spence [1908] 6 CLR 406 (Aus H Ct). Note that the disjunctive, rather than conjunctive, formulation of the exception derives from Doodeward itself, but the statutory codification of the exception under the Human Tissue Act (discussed later) avoids that sort of formula altogether.

82. Ibid, at 413.

83. Dobson, above n 45, at 479.

84. Grubb, A ‘Theft of body parts; property and dead bodies’ (1998) 6 Med L Rev 247.Google Scholar

85. Pawlowski, M ‘Property in body parts and products of the human body’ (2009) 30 Liverpool L Rev 35 at 43–45.Google Scholar

86. McHale, J ‘The legal regulation of human material’ in Grubb, A et al (eds) Principles of Medical Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33rd edn, 2010) p 1040.Google Scholar

87. Kelly, above n 40, at 743.

88. AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS [2005] QB 506 at para 148.

89. Yearworth, above n 27.

90. Price, above n 7, p 258.

91. Laslett, P (ed) Locke: Two Treaties of Government (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988) pp 287–288;Google Scholar Swain, M and Marusyk, R ‘An alternative to property rights in human tissue’ (1990) 20 Hastings Center Rep 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

92. Becker, Lc Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977) pp 32–55.Google Scholar

93. Ibid, pp 39–42.

94. Sperling, above n 29, p 104.

95. Dickenson, above n 14, pp 28–33.

96. Nozick, R Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974) pp 174–175.Google Scholar

97. Matthews, above n 26, at 219.

98. Hardcastle, R Law and the Human Body: Property Rights, Ownership and Control (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007) pp 135–142.Google Scholar

99. Ibid, p 142.

100. Ibid, p 115.

101. Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] Ac 591 at 614 (Lord Reid).

102. Referring to s 32(9)(c) of the Act in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2010] QB 1 at 16, Lord Judge CJ observed that ‘the formulation in the Doodeward case … has even found its way into a UK statute’ and that the ‘subsection would fortify the view that the common law treats parts or products of a living human body as property if they have been subject to an application of human skill (which, presumably, has changed their attributes)’.

103. GM Collins ‘Kidney preservation’ in Collins, above n 18, p 156.

104. Post, Sg (ed) Encyclopedia of Bioethics (New York: Gale, 33rd edn, 2004) p 1944.Google Scholar

105. Ibid.

106. EB Finger ‘Organ preservation’ Medscape Reference, 5 September 2013; available at http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/431140-overview (accessed 17 July 2014).

107. In contrast, Cronin and Douglas argued that ‘extensive skills have been applied to them [organs] to make them suitable for transplantation. These include not only surgical removal and preparation, perfusion with preserving fluid and sterile cold storage, but also the establishment of recipient compatibility by means of tissue typing and cross-matching procedures’: Cronin, Aj and Douglas, Jf ‘Directed and conditional deceased donor organ donations: laws and misconceptions’ (2010) 18 Med L Rev 275 at 287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Notice that Cronin and Douglas included the undoubtedly skilful work of surgical removal of an organ for transplantation in their consideration of the work or skill exception. But it seems that the work or skill involved in organ retrieval should not be considered for the purpose of the exception, because the question of property rights over excised organs does not arise until the organ is completely separated from the human body, at least if we accept Penner's separability thesis: Penner, Je The Idea of Property in Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) pp 111–127. See also Dickens in Collins, above n 18, at 356. Furthermore, the issue of a histocompatibility test is more relevant to treatment of a recipient than preservation of a donor's organ.Google Scholar

108. Kelly, above n 40, at 750.

109. See R v Rothery [1976] RTR 550; R v Welsh [1974] RTR 478; and R v Herbert [1961] JPLGR 12. Reuters ‘Willie Nelson's braids to be auctioned with Waylon Jennings's belongings’ The Guardian 21 August 2014.

110. Venner v Maryland, 354 A 2d 483 (Md CA 1976).

111. McHale in Grubb, above n 86, p 1045.

112. Price, above n 7, p 33.

113. Yearworth, above n 27.

114. Ibid, at 11.

115. A view that seems to conflict with Dobson, but, in Yearworth, the Court of Appeal distinguished Dobson on the basis that the pathologist in that case was not obliged to continue to preserve the brain for the claimants.

116. Yearworth, above n 27, at 20.

117. Ibid.

118. Ibid, at 19.

119. A view refuted by C Hawes ‘Property interests in body parts: Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust’ (2010) 73 Mod L Rev 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120. Australia: Bazley v Wesley Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 118 (Queensland SCTD); Re the estate of Late Edward Mark [2011] NSWSC 478.

121. Hecht v Superior Court for Los Angeles County, 20 Cal Rptr 2d 275 (1993).

122. Lam v University of British Columbia [2013] BCSC 2094 (Sup Ct BC).

123. Ibid, at para 41.

124. Ibid.

125. J.C.M. v A.N.A. [2012] BCSC 584.

126. C.C. v A.W. [2005] ABQB 290.

127. Davis v Davis, 842 SW 2d 588 (Tenn Sup Ct 1992); Ford, M ‘Nothing and not-nothing: law's ambivalent response to transformation and transgression at the beginning of life’ in Smith, Sw and Deazley, R (eds) The Legal, Medical and Cultural Regulation of the Body: Transformation and Transgression (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009) pp 21–46;Google Scholar Harris-Short, S ‘Regulating reproduction: frozen embryos, consent, welfare and the equality myth’ in Smith and Deazley, ibid, pp 47–75.Google Scholar

128. Giordano, S ‘Is the body a republic?’ (2005) 31 J Med Ethics 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129. Buchanan v Milton [1999] 2 FLR 844; Williams v Williams [1882] 20 Ch D 659.

130. Rose, Cm ‘Possession as the origin of property’ (1985) 52 U Chi L Rev 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

131. Matthews, above n 26, at 214–215.

132. Harris, J ‘Law and regulation of retained organs: the ethical issues’ (2002) 22 Legal Stud 527;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Quay, P ‘Utilizing the bodies of the dead’ (1984) 28 St Louis U L J 889 at 906.Google ScholarPubMed

133. Quay, above n 132, at 906.

134. Sections 2, 3 and 27(4) Human Tissue Act 2004.

135. Section 2(7) and 3(6) Human Tissue Act 2004, and Code of Practice 2, above n 1, at para 95.

136. Code of Practice 2, above n 1, at para 99; Norris, S Organ Donation and Transplantation in Canada (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2009) p 14.Google Scholar

137. For a detailed discussion of family's fallibility in predicting the deceased's wishes regarding donation, as well as the role of families in cadaveric organ donation, see Wilkinson, Tm Ethics and the Acquisition of Organs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) pp 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

138. Sections 2(7)(b) and 3(6)(c) Human Tissue Act 2004; Code of Practice 2, above n 1, paras 98, 100.

139. Dickens in Collins, above n 18, p 356.

140. Price, above n 7, pp 68–69.

141. Ibid, p 71. Wilkinson, above n 137, pp 66–70.

142. Brazier, M ‘Retained organs: ethics and humanity’ (2002) 22 Legal Stud 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

143. Wilkinson, Tm ‘Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent?’ (2005) 31 J Med Ethics 587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

144. Petrova v Latvia (Application no 4605/05, delivered on 24 June 2014 by the ECtHR – Chamber judgment).

145. Ibid, at para 77.

146. Ibid, at para 97.

147. Ibid, at para 5.

148. Ibid.

149. The deceased persons were allegedly local insurgents who were killed in government's anti-terrorist operations: Sabanchiyeva v Russia (Application no 38450/05, a final judgment of the ECtHR, delivered on 6 June 2013).

150. Nwabueze, Rn ‘“Orphaned” transplantable organs: law, ethics, and ownership’ (2015) 1 Can J Comp & Contemp L 241.Google Scholar

151. Penner, above n 107, ch 5.

152. Smith, He ‘Property as the law of things’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 1691.Google Scholar

153. TW Merrill ‘Property as modularity’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 151.

154. Penner, above n 107, p 111.

155. Ibid, p 112.

156. Ibid, p 114.

157. Ibid, p 121.

158. Roche v Douglas [2000] WASC 146.

159. R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18.

160. Ibid, at para 8

161. Ibid.

162. Hohfeld, Wn ‘Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning’ (1911) 23 Yale L J 16;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hohfeld, Wn ‘Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning’ (1917) 26 Yale L J 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

163. Whaley v County of Tuscola, 58 F 3d 1111 at 1115 (6th Cir 1995).

164. Ibid, at 1117.

165. Brotherton v Cleveland, 923 F 2d 477 at 481 (6th Cir 1991).

166. Ibid.

167. Grey, Tc ‘The disintegration of property’ in Pennock, Jr and Chapman, Jw (eds) Property (New York: New York University Press, 1980) pp 69–85.Google Scholar

168. Smith, above n 152, at 1697.

169. SR Munzer A Theory of Property (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p 23. However, Christman argued that property is better seen normatively as a collection rights that fall into two categories of control and income rights: Christman, J ‘Distributive justice and the complex structure of ownership’ (1994) 23 Phil & Pub Aff 225. Thus, Christman suggested that a single stick in the bundle of property rights, considered individually and in isolation from the bipartite groups of property rights, does not carry much normative importance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

170. Mathews, above n 26, at 195; Blade v Higgs [1865] 11 HLC 621.

171. Wilson, Gp ‘Jurisprudence and the discussion of ownership’ (1957) Camb L J 216 at 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

172. Christman, J ‘Can ownership be justified by natural rights?’ (1986) 15 Phil & Pub Aff 156–177.Google Scholar

173. Christman, J ‘Self-ownership, equality, and the structure of property rights’ (1991) 19 Pol Theory 28 at 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

174. Christman, above n 169, at 229 (original emphasis).

175. Grey in Pennock and Chapman, above n 167.

176. Honoré, Am ‘Ownership’ in Guest, Ag (ed) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) pp 107–147.Google Scholar Wall argued that Honoré's criterion of property is insufficient: Wall, J ‘The legal status of body parts: a framework’ (2011) 31 Oxford J Legal Stud 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

177. Goold, I ‘Sounds suspiciously like property treatment; does human tissue fit within the common law concept of property?’ (2005) 7 UTS L Rev 62;Google Scholar Quigley, M ‘Property and the body: applying Honoré’ (2007) 33 J Med Ethics 631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

178. Also, Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006.

179. Christman, above n 169, at 231.

180. Beyleveld, D and Brownsword, R ‘My body, my body parts, my property?’ (2000) 8 Health Care Analysis 87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

181. The House of Commons The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry (London: The Stationery Office, 2001).Google Scholar

182. Code of Practice 2, above n 1, para 95.

183. Petrova, above n 144, at para 5 (Wojtyczek J); see also Code of Practice 2, above n 1, paras 98, 100.

184. Section 33 Human Tissue Act 2004.

185. Muinzer, Tl ‘The law of the dead: a critical review of burial law, with a view to its development’ (2014) 34 Oxford J Legal Stud 791 at 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

186. Gitter, Dm ‘Ownership of human tissue; a proposal for federal recognition of human research participants' property rights in their biological material’ (2004) 61 Wash & Lee L Rev 257 at 302–303.Google Scholar

187. NCB, above n 2, p 137.

188. Holm, S ‘Who should control the use of human embryonic stem cell lines: a defence of the donors' ability to control’ (2006) 3 Bioethical Inquiry 55 at 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

189. Greenberg v Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F Supp 2d 1064 (US DC Florida 2003).

190. Ibid, at 1075.

191. Washington University v Catalona, 437 F Supp 2d 985 (USDC Ed Mo 2006); approved by the Court of Appeal in Washington University v Catalona, WL 1758268 (8th Cir 2007).

192. Washington University v Catalona, 437 F Supp 2d 985 at 997 (USDC Ed Mo 2006).

193. Kelly, above n 40.

194. Yearworth, above n 27, at 19–20.

195. Campbell, Av The Body in Bioethics (London: Routledge, 2009) p 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

196. Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406 at 436 (HL); Hill, J ‘The role of the donee's consent in the law of gifts’ (2001) 117 Law Q Rev 127.Google Scholar

197. Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, F Supp 2d 237 at 244 (EDNY 2005).

198. Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, 2007 WL 1462399, 1 at 3 (2nd Cir NY).

199. Becker, above n 92, pp 23, 99.

200. Ibid, pp 103–104.

201. Ibid, pp 107–108.

202. Harris, above n 132; Callahan, JC ‘On harming the dead’ (1987) 97 Ethics 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

203. Feinberg, J Harm to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984) pp 79–95.Google Scholar

204. Wilkinson, above n 137, p 44.

205. Glannon, W ‘Do the sick have a right to cadaveric organs?’ (2003) 29 J Med Ethics 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

206. Hardcastle, above n 98, p 147.

207. Becker, above n 92, p 102.

208. Christman, above n 169.

209. Beyleveld and Brownsword, above n 180, at 95.

210. Andrews and Nelkin, above n 14, p 13.

211. Getzler, J ‘Theories of property and economic development’ (1996) 26 J Interdisc Hist 639 at 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

212. Many thanks to the second reviewer for drawing my attention to this.

213. Goold, I et al (eds) Persons, Parts and Property: How Should We Regulate Human Tissue in the 21st Century? (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014).Google Scholar

214. Wilkinson, T ‘What's wrong with conditional organ donation?’ (2003) 29 J Med Ethics 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

215. Department of Health An Investigation into Conditional Organ Donation (London: Department of Health, 2000).Google Scholar

216. BBC News ‘Mother denied daughter's organs’ 12 April 2008; available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7344205.stm (accessed ••••••••••••).

217. Hta statement on directed donation of organs after death (14 April 2008).

218. Requested Allocation of a Deceased Donor Organ (London: Department of Health, 2010).Google Scholar

219. Cronin and Douglas, above n 107.

220. Pattinson, Sd ‘Directed donation and ownership of human organs’ (2011) 31 Legal Stud 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

221. A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289 (Burton J).

222. L Skene ‘Raising issue with a property law approach’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 276.

223. Skene, above n 15, at 121.

224. NHS Blood and Transplant Guidelines for Consent for Solid Organ Transplantation in Adults (London: NHS, 2011) p 14.Google Scholar

225. AB v Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service [1990] SCLR 263.

226. RN Nwabueze ‘Cadavers, body parts and the remedial problem’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 157 at pp 170–174.

227. K Greasley ‘Property rights in the human body: commodification and objectification’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 67.

228. Moore v Regents of the University of California, 793 P 2d 479 at 497 (1990).

229. Skene, L ‘Arguments against people legally “owning” their bodies, body parts and tissue’ (2002) 2 Macquarie L J 165.Google Scholar

230. Herring, J and Chau, P ‘My body, your body, our body’ (2007) 15 Med L Rev 34;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed J Herring ‘Why we need a statute regime to regulate bodily material’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 215.

231. Moore, above n 228, at 488.

232. Nwabueze, Rn Biotechnology and the Challenge of Property (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).Google Scholar

233. Wall, above n 176); J Wall ‘The boundaries of property law’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 109.

234. D Dickenson ‘Alternatives to a corporate commons: biobanking, genetics and property in the body’ in Goold et al, above n 213, p 177.