Health Care Analysis

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 353–368 | Cite as

Who “Owns” Cells and Tissues?

  • Karen Lebacqz
Article

Abstract

Opposition to `ownership' of cells and tissues often depends on arguments about the special or sacred nature of human bodies and other living things. Such arguments are not very helpful in dealing with the patenting of DNA fragments. Two arguments undergird support for patenting: the notion that an author has a `right' to an invention resulting from his/her labor, and the utilitarian argument that patents are needed to support medical inventiveness. The labor theory of ownership rights is subject to critique, though it may still have enduring value. The more important argument is that deriving from the common good. If patents on DNA are supported on the basis of their contributions to the common good, then they can also be limited based on considerations of the common good.

bodies common good DNA ownership patenting rights 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, L.B. (1986) My Body, My Property. Hastings Center Report (October) 16(5), 28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, L.B. and Nelkin D. (2001) Body Bazaar: The Market for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age. NY: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, G.J. (1990) Outrageous Fortune: Selling Other People's Cells. Hastings Center Report 20(6), 36-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Annas, G.J. (1988) Whose Waste Is It Anyway? The Case of John Moore. Hastings Center Report 18(5), 37-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkeley Organs Watch News (2000) A publication of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, pp. 10-11.Google Scholar
  6. Brody, B.A. (1999) Protecting Human Dignity and the Patenting of Human Genes. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, A.R. (2000) A Human Rights Perspective on Intellectual Property, Scientific Progress, and Access to the Benefits of Science. (draft)Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, A.R. (1999a) Background and Overview. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  9. Chapman, A.R. (1999b) Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dukepoo, F.C. (1999) Native American Perspectives on Genetic Patenting. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue (pp. 76, 83). Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  11. Eramian, D. (1999) BIO and the AAAS Genetic Patenting Forum. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, J.H. (1999) The Uneven Playing Field of the Dialogue on Patenting. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  13. GeneWATCH (1997) 10, Feb.Google Scholar
  14. Gold, E.R. (1996) Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U. Press, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, E. (2000) How Can You Patent a Human Gene? Dallas Morning News, March 6.Google Scholar
  16. Haseltine, W. (2000) The Case for Gene Patents. Technology Review (Sept/Oct.), 59.Google Scholar
  17. Hensley, S. (2001) Celera's Human Genetic Code Will be Available on Web Site. Wall Street Journal, Feb 8.Google Scholar
  18. Howard, K. (July 2000) The Bioinformatics Gold Rush. Scientific American 283(1).Google Scholar
  19. Joint Appeal Against Human and Animal Patenting (1995).Google Scholar
  20. Kramer, M.H. (1997) John Locke and the Origins of Private Property: Philosophical Explorations of Individualism, Community, and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Locke, J. (1962) Second Treatise on Civil Government. In E. Barker (Ed.), Social Contract (Section 28). NY: Oxford U. Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mattei, U. (2000) Basic Principles of Property Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, C.B. (1999) A Southern Baptist Looks at Patenting Life. In A.R. Chapman (Ed.). Perspectives on Genetic Patenting: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue (p. 169). Washington, D.C.: AAAS.Google Scholar
  24. Moltmann-Wendel, E. (1995) I Am My Body: A Theology of Embodiment. NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Okin, S.M. (1989) Justice, Gender and the Family. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Pateman, C. (1988) The Sexual Contract. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pope John XXIII (1961) Mater et Magistra (Christianity and Social Progress) #83. In J. Gremillion (Ed.) (1976), The Gospel of Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching Since Pope John (p. 161). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  28. Pope Paul VI (1967) Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples) #22. In J. Gremillion (Ed.) (1976), The Gospel of Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching Since Pope John (p. 394). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  29. Pope Pius XI (1931) Quadragesimo Anno (On Social Reconstruction). Boston, MA: Daughters of St. Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Rabinow, P. (1992) Severing the Ties: Fragmentation and Dignity in Late Modernity. Knowledge and Society: The Anthropology of Science and Technology 9, 169-187.Google Scholar
  31. Regalado, A. (2000) The Great Gene Grab. Technology Review (Sept/October), 50.Google Scholar
  32. Sagoff, M. (1998) Patented Genes: An Ethical Appraisal. Issues in Science and Technology Online. Spring National Academy of Sciences. www.nap/issues/14.3/sagoff.htm.Google Scholar
  33. Schleuning, N. (1997) To Have and To Hold: The Meaning of Ownership in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Second Vatican Council (1965) Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), #71. In J. Gremillion (Ed.) (1976), The Gospel of Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching Since Pope John (p. 307). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  35. Shulman, S. (2000) Toward Sharing the Genome. Technology Review (Sept/Oct.), 60.Google Scholar
  36. Vaugh, K.I. (1980) John Locke: Economist and Social Scientist. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, K. (1998) The Body Bazaar: The Market in Human Organs is Growing. Discover 19:115-120. Reprinted in W. Teays and L. Purdy (Eds.) (2001), Bioethics, Justice and Health Care. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  38. www.med.upenn.edu/-bioethics/whoownslife?Google Scholar
  39. www.nationalacademies.org.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Lebacqz
    • 1
  1. 1.MendocinoUSA

Personalised recommendations