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

86 Nw. U. L. Rev. 453 (1991-1992)
Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Expanded Disclosure, Limited Property Rights

handle is hein.journals/illlr86 and id is 473 raw text is: Copyright 1992 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 86, No. 2 NOTE Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Expanded Disclosure, Limited Property Rights Jeffrey A. Potts I. INTRODUCTION Biotechnology is one of the fastest developing areas of the American economy. I The scientific advancements from biotechnology have created a reality today from yesterday's science fiction. This rapid advancement, though, has also created a number of challenges for the American legal system because scientific breakthroughs do not always fit easily within established legal doctrines.2 The California Supreme Court, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California,3 handed down an opinion that dramatically highlights the clash between modem technology and traditional law. In Moore, a pa- tient claimed that a physician's failure to inform the patient of the physi- cian's intent to conduct research on and patent the patient's cells created causes of action for both the physician's failure to obtain informed con- sent and the conversion of the patient's property, i.e., his cells.4 The Moore case marked the first time a person has asserted a property interest in his tissue after the tissue's removal from the body.5 The California Supreme Court held that while a person can state a cause of action for a physician's failure to obtain a patient's informed consent, a cause of ac- tion cannot be established for conversion.6 This Note agrees with the majority's opinion allowing a cause of action for the physician's failure to gain the patient's informed consent. However, this Note argues that the majority's holding ambiguously de- fines the scope of the physician's duty to obtain informed consent7 and establishes exceptions that undermine the efficacy of the majority's hold- ing.8 This Note also argues that the objective causation standard nor- mally employed to determine whether informed consent has been 1 When Science Outruns Law, Washington Post, July 13, 1990, at A20, col. 1. 2 See infra note 79 and accompanying text. 3 51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (1990). 4 Id. at 128, 793 P.2d at 484, 271 Cal. Rptr. at 149. 5 See infra notes 177-78 and accompanying text. 6 Moore, 51 Cal. 3d at 148, 793 P.2d at 497, 271 Cal. Rptr. at 164. 7 See infra notes 125-35 and accompanying text. 8 See infra notes 121-24 and accompanying text.

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