scholarly journals Survey on the Attitude Toward General Consent for Human Tissue Banking and Use for Medical Research: Is Repeated Consent Indispensable?

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Sachiko NAKAYA-TAKENOSHITA ◽  
Yuki OHTA ◽  
Masanori OHTAKI ◽  
Yuko TAKEBA ◽  
Minoru WATANABE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Human Tissue ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Human Tissue Banking

Pathology as the Cornerstone of Human Tissue Banking: European Consensus Expert Group Report

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Hainaut ◽  
Elodie Caboux ◽  
Generoso Bevilacqua ◽  
Fref Bosman ◽  
Thibaut Dassesse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Tissue ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
Group Report ◽  
Human Tissue Banking ◽  
Consensus Expert

Pathology as the cornerstone of human tissue banking: experiences in the post-genomics era

Pathology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. S76
Author(s):  
A. Johns ◽  
A. Gill ◽  
C. Toon ◽  
C. Forrest ◽  
M. Texler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Tissue ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Human Tissue Banking

The importance of ethic in the field of human tissue banking

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Morales Pedraza ◽  
Marisa Roma Herson
Keyword(s):  
Human Tissue ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Human Tissue Banking

scholarly journals “Our” Bodies: Property Rights in Human Tissue

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan M. Gilmour
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Human Tissue ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Many ◽  
Economic Goods ◽  
The University ◽  
Near Future

AbstractIn Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California held that the human source of blood and tissue used by his physician and other defendants in potentially lucrative medical research without his permission could not assert a legal claim that, in doing so, the defendants had deprived him of any property right in these materials or the cell line developed from them. He was, however, permitted to proceed with his claim that there had been a failure to obtain his informed consent to the excision or removal of these materials, given that their end uses were not disclosed. The decision in Moore is but one example of the range of new legal problems created by the many and rapid advances in biotechnology, and of the attempts courts are making to respond. The judgment raises questions about whether these types of issues as between the patient and medical, research, and pharmaceutical concerns can or ought to be analyzed in terms of property rights. Are the general justifications for recognizing proprietary rights that have traditionally been influential in judicial decisions useful or helpful in this context? And what of the identity of the decision-maker? In Moore, the majority was content to effectively delegate much of the decision-making authority to the U.S. Patent Office and the Office of Technology Assessment. While there are no Canadian decisions directly on point as yet, the pace of technological advances, the potential for economic gain, and the international nature of biotechnology enterprises all set the scene for these issues' coming before our courts in the near future. This paper begins to explore the implications of adopting an analytical model based on property rights and to address the fact that the biotechnology industry already operates on the premise that such material can be owned. It concludes that the current legal regime needs to be modified to allow effective control of these new realities and suggests principles that might be adopted to address important concerns that are raised by the transformation of human tissue and cells into economic goods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document