Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Moore v.

Regents of the University of California (1990)


Facts:
-P sought treatent for hairy cell leu!eia" #as tol$ his con$ition #as life threatening
an$ that he nee$e$ his s%leen reove$. & $i$ not tell hi that his cells #ere uni'ue an$
that they hel$ scientific an$ coercial value. & $evelo%e$ a cell line" calle$ the Mo
cell line" receive$ a %atent an$ entere$ into coercial agreeents.
- P sue$ for $aages" stating in his co%laint several causes of action inclu$ing
conversion (the & too! his cells" #hich #ere his %ersonal %ro%erty" #ithout his
%erission). P lost at trial court on the groun$s that" although the allegations #ere true"
he faile$ to state a legal clai. (he a%%ellate court reverse$.
)ssue: *re e+cise$ cells a!in to %ro%erty to the e+tent that %ro%erty rights a%%ly to the,
Reasoning:
-(here is no case %rece$ent su%%orting P-s %ro%osition that the unauthori.e$ use of
huan cells is conversion.
-)n or$er to esta/lish conversion" the P ust sho# an interference #ith his 0o#nershi% or
right of %ossession.1
-P $i$ not e+%ect to retain %ossession of his cells" therefore" he ust %rove that he
aintaine$ an o#nershi% interest in the.
-)t is unli!ely that Moore aintaine$ this interest /ecause such interests are liite$ /y
statute.
-2tatutes relating to the $is%osal of organs are ore relevant an$ ore authoritative on
this issue" than is the la# of conversion.
-P-s reliance on un#ante$ %u/licity cases is unconvincing /ecause 0only %ro%erty can /e
converte$1 an$" unli!e one-s %ersona" the genetic aterial the &s use$ in their research
#as not uni'ue to Moore. 3But I thought Moores cells were unique and thats why the
Ds wanted them!4
-* $octor-s fi$uciary-$uty to his %atient" an$ the $uty of infore$ consent are sufficient
to %rotect against invasions of huan %rivacy an$ $ignity.
-* C* statute re'uiring the $is%osal of /iological #aste liits the uses of e+cise$ cells to
the %oint that #hatever a %atient is left #ith cannot /e %ro%erty.
-Moore cannot o#n the cell line /ecause it is a %atente$ invention.
Policy Rationales:
-Uncertainty a/out the o#nershi% of e+cise$ cells #ill $iscourage e$ical researchers
#ho are 0engage$ in socially useful activities.1 3Certainty v. Fairness4
-5+ten$ing conversion lia/ility to researchers #ill 0$estroy the econoic incentive to
con$uct i%ortant e$ical research.1 3This sounds like !4
6ol$ing: 5+cise$ cells are not %ro%erty an$ the tort of conversion $oes not a%%ly.
Concurrence (*ra/ian):
-(his case has serious oral raifications.
-*llo#ing a tort of conversion #oul$ un$erine huan $ignity an$ create a
0ar!et%lace in /o$y %arts.1
Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)
-(he 7egislature" not the courts" shoul$ a$$ress this issue" %erha%s /y creating a
0licensing schee.1 3"o he is really o#$ecting to %ree market transactions o% #ody &arts'
#ut not to com&ensating &eo&le %or those &arts' &er se.4
&issent (Mos!):
-Pro%erty is a /un$le of rights #ith the conse'uence that %articular rights can /e ta!en
a#ay" /ut o#ner still has %ro%erty.
-Moore ha$ the right to $o #ith his cells #hatever the &s ha$ the right to $o.
-(he &-s actions are tantaount to slavery /ecause they are e+%ro%riating the P-s /o$y
for their o#n %ersonal gain.
-&enying the P any rights to the cell line is un8ust an$ ioral" %articularly #hen the P is
not on e'ual footing #ith the &.
-(he a8ority i%ro%erly cites to statutory authority: the U*9* $oes not e+%licitly
%rohi/it the sale of e+cise$ tissue for research.
-(he non-$isclosure cause of action is not a$e'uate to a$$ress this situation /ecause: (1)
the %laintiff ust eet a very high /ur$en of %roof: (;) the C<* #ill only allo# a %atient
to say no to treatent" /ut not to say yes to a share of the %rofits fro coerciali.ation:
an$ (=) the %atient #ill only /e a/le to sue his $octor.

S-ar putea să vă placă și