About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

35 St. Louis U. L.J. 433 (1990-1991)
Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Patients, Property Rights, and Public Policy

handle is hein.journals/stlulj35 and id is 443 raw text is: NOTES MOORE v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: PATIENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND PUBLIC POLICY I. INTRODUCTION Recent developments in biomedical technology have introduced ethical concerns over property rights relative to the human body, which have not been seriously considered since slavery was abolished.' Ir 1988, the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a surrogacy contract for the creation of a child, when that agreement required the surrogate mother to irrevocably surrender her parental rights in exchange for payment.' More recently, a Tennessee court held that frozen embryos are subject to joint control by the biological parents - who have an equal voice in the disposition of the embryos. The idea that one human being may be owned by another is repugnant to our sense of human dignity, yet there is a significant difference between ownership in the context of slavery and ownership rights of a person with respect to his own body.' Nevertheless, in Moore v. Regents of the University of Cal- l. Transplantation of tissues and organs from live donors, artificial maintenance of life, redefining when death occurs in order to increase the supply of tissues and organs, and newly developed reproductive technologies are some of the concerns that implicate property rights in the body. See generally R. ScoTT, THE BODY As PROP- ERTY (1981). 2. In the Matter of Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988). 3. Davis v. Davis, C.A. No. 180, (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 1990) (1990 Tenn. App. Lexis 642) (where pregnancy has not yet occurred, a man may not be required to beget children against his wishes). The trial court had granted sole custody to the bio- logical mother so that she would have the opportunity to be implanted with the em- bryos. Davis v. Davis, No. E-14496 (Tenn. Cir. Sept. 21, 1989). 4. While slavery abolishes one's personal autonomy, exclusive control over one's own body enhances personal autonomy and privacy. See Danforth, Cells, Sales, and Royalties: The Patient's Right to a Portion of the Profits, 6 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 179, 192 (1988) (The exclusive dominion one has over inanimate property becomes even more inviolable when ownership is immutable and the thing owned has the sanc- tity of the human body.).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most