title: Case comment: Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
abstract: The increasing use of human tissues in medical research has spawned a host of ethical and legal debates. Legal analysis in this area has almost exclusively focused on the question of property rights in both the tissues used in research and in the resulting products. One illustrative case is Moore v. Regents of the University of California, in which a patient sued his doctor for conversion of his spleen which had been removed for therapeutic purposes. The doctor later used the spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line. This Comment examines and rejects the property law approach to this issue. Instead, this Comment proposes two legislative changes which would 1) eliminate any trade in human tissues and 2) require doctors to inform their patients of any research interest in proposed medical procedures. These proposals resolve the problem presented in Moore, and avoid the misleading, and inevitably unanswerable, question of property rights.
authors.affiliation: A.B. Bryn Mawr College.
authors.forename: H R
authors.initials: HR
authors.lastname: Bergman
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008297:Male; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D012106:Research / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013154:Spleen / Q000601:surgery*