Ethical & Social Impact of Computing, SYCS 390
Body Tissue Notes

This site is used in conjunction with the course. It does not contain all the material given in class.

There may be errors in this material, and it should not be used in place of material given in the classes.

Owns Body Tissues?

• Homo Economicus: Considerations in the Commercialization of Body Tissue (Nelkin & Andrews)
• Owning Tissue: The Point (Panelli)
• Owning Tissue: The Counterpoint (Mosk)

• < Oct. 5, 1976: John Moore diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.
  
• Oct. 5: Moore visits UCLA Medical Center, and is hospitalized.
  
• Oct. 8: Dr. David Golde recommends removal of spleen. At this time, all defendants knew that "certain blood products and blood components were of great value" and access to [this] patient would provide "competitive, commercial, and scientific advantages."
  Should Moore have been informed that the cells were of "great value"?
  
• Oct. 18 & 19: Golde & Quan "formed the intent and made arrangements to obtain portions of [Moore's] spleen."
  Should Moore have been informed that Golde was going to take a portion?
  
• Oct. 20, 1976: Surgeons at UCLA Medical Center remove Moore's spleen.
  At this point, who owns the spleen?
  
• Nov. 1976-Sept. 1983: Moore returns several times to UCLA Medical Center from his home in Seattle. Moore was under Golde's direction and suggestion that "such visits were necessary and required for his health and well-being, and based upon the trust inherent in and by virtue of the physician-patient relationship."
  Do you think that Moore did indeed have to travel from Seattle to LA?
  
• Nov. 1976-Sept. 1983 (continued): At each visit, Golde withdrew samples of "blood, blood serum, bone marrow aspirate, and sperm." Moore is told that he must travel because the procedures were to be performed there and only under Golde's direction.
  After samples are taken, who owns:
  The blood, blood serum, and bone marrow?
  The sperm?
  
• < August 1979: Golde established a cell line from Moore's T-lymphocytes.
  Should Moore have been informed that a cell line was established from his cells?
  
• < August 1979: Moore is still traveling and Golde is taking samples.
  
• Jan. 20, 1981: University of CA Regents applied for a patent on the cell line with Golde and Quan as inventors. The Regents, Golde, and Quan would share in any royalties or profits by an established policy.
  Does Golde, Quan, or the Regents have any legal obligation to divulge this information to Moore?
  Moore is still traveling and Golde is taking samples.
  
• < June 1982: Golde negotiates agreements for commercial development of Mo cell line with Genetics Institute. Golde is a paid consultant, and obtains 75,000 shares of common stock. Golde & Regents are paid $330,000 over next 3 years, including pro rata share of Golde's salary and fringe benefits in exchange for "exclusive access to the materials and research performed."
  Should Moore have been informed?
  Moore is still traveling and Golde is taking samples.
  
• Jun. 4, 1982: Sandoz is added to the agreement and Golde and Regents receive an additional $110,000.
  Should Moore have been informed?
  Moore is still traveling and Golde is taking samples.
  
• Sept. 1983: Moore makes his last visit to Golde.
  
• Mar. 20, 1984. U.S. Patent No. 4,438,032 issues.
  

Panelli

1. No judicial decision supports Moore.
   
2. Statutes limit interest of a patient in excised cells.
   
3. The subject matter of the patent is not Moore's property.
   

1. This is a new issue!
2. The CA statute mentioned states that human tissue and similar material "following conclusion of scientific use shall be disposed of..." Note that it states "scientific use" and not "commercial exploitation."
3. Without Moore, "there would have been no Mo cell line."