The question of whether we have ownership over our own bodies is a complex one. While it may seem obvious to the average person that we do, lawyers and legal experts have a different perspective. The recent lawsuit brought by the family of Henrietta Lacks highlights this discrepancy and calls for a resolution.
Henrietta Lacks, a Black mother of five, passed away in 1951 due to cervical cancer. During her treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital, tissues from her cervix were biopsied without her knowledge or consent. These tissues were later used in research that led to significant advancements in treating diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s, and the flu.
The family’s lawsuit alleged that the tissues were not taken for medical treatment purposes and accused Thermo Fisher Scientific of selling the cells and profiting from the products developed using them without compensating the family or seeking permission. While informed consent for research use is now standard practice, the question of ownership rights remains debated.
One might assume that Lacks owned her body and the tissues taken from it, which formed the basis of the family’s lawsuit. However, the lawsuit did not claim theft or illegal action. Instead, it focused on unjust enrichment. This is because current law and precedent make it difficult to prove that anything was taken illegally.
Property rights, it turns out, are not as clear-cut as they may seem. Legal experts describe property as a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a specific right. For example, you may own a house, but the holder of the mortgage has a claim too. Airplanes can fly overhead, and there may be easements for utility lines. When it comes to the human body, property rights are even more limited. You cannot mortgage yourself or leave yourself to your heirs like a house. The sale of one’s own body as a slave is also illegal. Most body parts cannot be sold, with exceptions like blood, sperm, and eggs. Expelled or sloughed-off materials like urine, dead skin, and hair cuttings also have no ownership rights.
Contrary to popular belief, having autonomy over one’s physical body does not grant a property interest in it. Legal expert Jacob Sherkow points out that the man on the street did not attend law school. Even if people did have property rights over their bodies, that would not extend to the genetic information in their cells. From an economic standpoint, genetic information is considered a public good, which can be used by multiple individuals simultaneously without conflict or blocking others’ use.
Claiming ownership over genetic information or seeking a stake in the value of research based on it has no legal justification, according to Jorge Contreras. It would be akin to claiming profits from a discovery made using one’s laptop. Giving people proprietary interests in such material would be detrimental to scientific research that benefits society.
Courts have generally rejected arguments for bodily property rights. In 1990, the California Supreme Court ruled against people’s right to share in the profits from research on their bodily materials. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that genes are not patentable because they are products of nature, but the question of whether individuals own their own genes remains unanswered. Some states, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, have defined genetic information as personal property, but it’s unclear if these laws would hold up in court.
While property law is not the sole means of protecting genetic information, contract law and privacy law also come into play. Several states have enacted genetic privacy laws that require informed consent or authorization for genetic testing or disclosure of genetic information.
Despite the perspectives of judges and lawmakers, the belief that individuals naturally own their bodies and bodily products remains strong. Legal experts like Hank Greely emphasize that aligning the law with popular notions of justice is crucial. Jessica Roberts suggests that people should have property rights over their bodily tissues and the genetic information within them. She argues that these rights would not hinder medical research and would provide individuals with an opportunity to negotiate for a share of profits. Some may even forego monetary compensation due to their altruistic nature.
In the end, it is state legislatures that have the power to change the status quo. Courts are bound by legal precedent, but legislatures are not. However, the rapid advancement of genetics has left us in uncharted territory without clear precedents to guide us.
In response to Helen Sharpe’s letter, the appeal of star athletes’ high salaries lies not just in their wins and athleticism but also in the immense amounts of money they earn. This appeal attracts fans and spectators who want to witness their success and wealth firsthand. It’s important to consider these factors when discussing the controversy surrounding high athlete salaries.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that there may be subconscious biases at play when some individuals object to high salaries for star athletes, particularly those who are people of color. In our society, many others earn excessive salaries without similar backlash. It’s essential to examine these underlying biases and address inequalities in all areas, including salary discrepancies.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
