From Control over One's Body to Control over One's Body Parts: Extending the Doctrine of Informed Consent
![handle is hein.journals/nylr67 and id is 349 raw text is: FROM CONTROL OVER ONE'S BODY
TO CONTROL OVER ONE'S BODY PARTS:
EXTENDING THE DOCTRINE
OF INFORMED CONSENT
SHARON NAN PERLEY
INTRODUCTION
Unbeknownst to John Moore, and without his consent, Moore's tis-
sues and cells' became the foundational ingredients of his physician's re-
search.2 In 1976, Moore's physician, Dr. David Golde, removed
Moore's spleen as part of his treatment for hairy-cell leukemia.'3 Over
the next seven years, in the supposed context of medical treatment,
Golde withdrew samples of Moore's blood, bone marrow, and other bod-
ily substances.4 Many of these samples, however, were extracted solely
to further Golde's biotechnological research.5 Golde ultimately used the
excised body parts to establish-again, without Moore's consent-the
I For the purposes of this Note, unless otherwise specified, the term tissues and cells
will be used in the broadest sense, to include organs, bone marrow, blood cells, human tissue,
bodily fluids, etc. The terms body parts and bodily substances will also be used in this
broad sense.
2 Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 793 P.2d 479, 481 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied, I I I S.
Ct. 1388 (1991).
3 Moore, 793 P.2d at 481. Dr. David Golde, Moore's treating physician at the UCLA
Medical Center, had informed Moore that he had reason to fear for his life, and that [removal
of his spleen] was necessary to slow down the progress of his disease. Id. at 480-81. Based on
these representations, Moore consented to a splenectomy. Id. at 481.
Prior to this operation, however, Dr. Golde and Shirley Quan, a researcher employed by
UCLA, had arranged to obtain portions of Moore's spleen for biotechnological research pur-
poses. Id. Although these research activities were unrelated to Moore's medical care, neither
Golde nor Quan informed the patient of their plans to conduct this research and neither re-
quested the patient's permission. Id. Similarly, although Golde and Quan continued to per-
form research on the bodily fluids withdrawn from Moore during his subsequent visits to
UCLA, they never informed him of their activities. Id. Even more startling %s their failure
to tell Moore that at least some of his visits to UCLA were not necessary for his health and
well-being, but rather were solely to further Golde and Quan's biotechnological research.
Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 249 Cal. Rptr. 494, 501-02 (2d Dist. 1988), afl'd in part,
rev'd in part, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1388 (1991).
4 Dr. Golde requested that Moore return to UCLA (from Seattle) on approximately
twelve different occasions. Third Amended Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief at
11, Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 249 Cal. Rptr. 494 (2d Dist. 1988), afrd in part,
rev'd in part, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied, III S.Ct. 1388 (1991) [hercinafter Third
Amended Complaint]. During these visits, Dr. Golde obtained additional samples of blood,
blood serum, skin, bone marrow aspirate, and sperm. Moore, 793 P.2d at 481. Moore was
informed that these visits were necessary and required for his health and well-being. Id.
5 Third Amended Complaint, supra note 4, at 13.
335
Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nylr67&div=17&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
From Control over One's Body to Control over One's Body Parts: Extending the Doctrine of Informed Consent
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most