[Histonet] The LEGAL side of specimen ownership

[E. Wayne Johnson]

<Cue "Who's Next", side 2, "Wont get fooled again"> Townsend synth intro [dito dito dito dito nano dito nano dito....]

Washington University vs WJ Catalona (2005, 2008) dealt with the subject of research samples
which had been formally donated to the university, not with body parts excised during the course of
surgery that the patient wants to take home and cook or feed to their pet or
have bronzed and display on the mantle.


Actually the use of the donation form in the case of WU vs Catalona implies that
the patient had rights over the material which were then waived by the completion of
the form.  The issue in "Catalona" was whether or not the researcher Catalona could
retain some research tissue if the donor so directeed it to stay with him, or if
the university could hang onto the stuff because it was donated to the university.

Portuguese national law follows a Lockean interpretation of personal property rights
that the body parts belong to the individual and on his death the ownership passes to
the family.

Nevertheless physical possession is always a large practical part of a legal right
and it could be some difficulty wresting the material out of the clutching hands
of biomedical bureaucrats.

https://youtu.be/UDfAdHBtK_Q?t=445


E. Wayne Johnson DVM
Enable AgTech
Beijing




Terri Braud via Histonet wrote:
> Sorry, E. Wayne, but in the USA, according to December 2004 JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 292(20):2500-5, recent examination of these issues by a US federal court resulted in a ruling that individuals do not retain rights of ownership or control of biological materials.  It belongs to the receiving laboratory.
> A small collection of case law has determined that samples are controlled and owned not by those who contributed them but by researchers or their institutions. Taken together, the cases do not offer clear guidance; they are consistent only in their denial of a right claimed by individuals who contributed samples. Genet Med. 2011 Jun; 13(6): 569-575.
> It is not YOUR gallbladder if you go to a hospital to have it removed. It becomes the property of the hospital or where ever they chose to send it.
> <Cue Law and Order sound> DONG DONG
> Terri L. Braud, HT(ASCP)
> HNL Laboratories for Holy Redeemer Hospital
> 1648 Huntingdon Pike
> Meadowbrook, PA 19046
> Ph: 215-938-3689
> Fax: 215-938-3874
>
> 6. Re: release of body parts (E. Wayne Johnson)
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:32:13 +0800
> From: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Histonet] release of body parts
> I will take the other side of this argument.
>
> If you go to the Dentist and he extracts a tooth, it is the usual procedure that he gives it to you.
> After all it is "your tooth".
>
> Like wise, it's your gall bladder.? The legal department should understand that it is your personal property and the mining of it from your body gives the hospital no particular right to take control of it any more than they have the right to take control of a birthed infant.
>
> E. Wayne Johnson DVM
> Enable AgTech
> Beijing
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>