Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Insufficient Protection of Patients's Rights in the Biotechnological Market
![handle is hein.journals/geolr25 and id is 505 raw text is: CASE COMMENTS
MOORE v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA: INSUFFICIENT
PROTECTION OF PATIENTS' RIGHTS IN
THE BIOTECHNOLOGICAL MARKET
The California Supreme Court, confronted with novel legal is-
sues in Moore v. Regents of the University of California,1 held
that pursuant to informed-consent obligations a physician must
disclose his pre-removal interests2 in a patient's tissue before rec-
ommending a medical procedure, even when the planned use of the
excised tissue is unrelated to the patient's health.3 The court also
held that a patient has no legally protected property interests in
cells, for conversion purposes, once they are removed from his
body.4 Plaintiff John Moore, a patient at the University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles Medical Center (UCLA Medical Center), filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against his
physician and the physician's research assistant,5 the Regents of
the University of California (the Regents)6 and two pharmaceutical
1 51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (1990).
2 Pre-removal interests refers to interests the physician has before extracting the tissue.
In Moore, the plaintiff alleged that the physician had scientific and commercial interests in
his tissue but failed to disclose those interests when the doctor recommended the removal of
the tissue. Id. at 128, 793 P.2d at 483, 271 Cal. Rptr. at 150.
3 Id. at 128-29, 131-32, 793 P.2d at 483, 485, 271 Cal. Rptr. at 150, 152.
4 The court said there were several reasons to doubt that a patient would retain prop-
erty rights over cells that had been excised. Id. at 137, 793 P.2d at 489, 271 Cal. Rptr. at
156. The court went on to conclude that the [unconsented-to] use of excised human cells in
medical research does not amount to a conversion. Id. at 143, 793 P.2d at 493, 271 Cal.
Rptr. at 160.
- Id. at 125, 793 P.2d at 480-81, 271 Cal. Rptr. at 147-48. The physician was David W.
Golde, M.D., whose research assistant was Shirley W. Quan.
' Id. The Regents own and operate the University of California and employed Golde and
Quan.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/geolr25&div=22&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Insufficient Protection of Patients's Rights in the Biotechnological Market
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most