The domain is for sale!
contact: craig AT

Organ Transplantation

kazzasingh's version from 2018-05-09 07:48

Property rights in the body

Question Answer
Dobson v N Tyneside H A [1996](Property rights in the MODIFIED body) --> through a post-mortem, organs were taken out of the body through the use of skill. HELD: once the application of skill had taken place, the body could then be owned. It was the property of the person who had applied the skill. Property rights in body parts could arise where work on a body part differentiates it from being a mere corpse awaiting burial. People applying this skill would tend to be medical professionals. Is this giving rights to professionals in a way that would not be something that you could apply if you were not a professional? Unequal rights?
R v Kelly (1999)(Property rights in the UNMODIFIED body) --> to deny that there is property in the body is to deny that anybody can steal it. There is something about the body that has some value that can be misappropriated. 'It may be that on some occasion the courts will hold that human body parts are capable of being property for the purposes of theft even without the acquisition of different attributes".
Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990)(No property rights in bodily material) --> Moore had lukemia and his cells were taken into a laboratory in order to create a treatment for him. His cell lines were developed and used by the hospital to treat other people. It became very profitable. HELD: Moore had no property in his own cells as skill was applied to them separately. It was this application of skill that gave rise to property rights.
R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex p Blood (1999); Evans v Amicus Healthcase (2004); Evans v UK (2006)If you have donated sperm or eggs, you retain control over them and your consent to their use must be in place before they're used.
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust (2010)Men had donated sperm and it was being kept in a freezer. The freezer defrosted and the sperm they had donated could not be used. They claimed in negligence because the freezer was faulty and that should have been recognised. They'd lost the chance to be fathers. HELD: property that could be compensated for when damaged.


Question Answer
Re A [1992]Brain death = death for legal purposes. Professor Truog says that this definition is unclear --> there is no accepted rationale for holding brain dead patients to be dead - this definition is socially constructed to serve the interests of transplants.

Live Donor Donations

Question Answer
Brown and others [1993]Individuals cannot consent to substantial bodily injury

Recent badges