Abstract
Genetic researchers and medical practitioners often need to obtain access to stored human tissue without consent from the people concerned. But the laws that relate to the ownership of, and control over, stored human tissue are at present unclear, especially in the light of recent cases and inquiries. Here, I discuss how the law might be clarified, and argue that the law should allow stored human tissue to be used without consent, providing that this occurs with ethical approval and that the confidentiality of the donor is protected.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans, 1999. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/pdf/e35.pdf
Mason, K. & Laurie, G. Consent or property? Dealing with the body and its parts in the shadow of Bristol and Alder Hey. Mod. Law Rev. 64, 710–729 (2001).
Morgan, D. in Issues in Medical Law and Ethics 83–104 (Cavendish, London, 2001).
Association of Clinical Pathologists (UK). ACPN News, Spring (2001). Available at http://www.pathologists.org.uk
Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee. Protection of Human Genetic Information, Issues Paper 26, October (2001). Available at http://www.alrc.gov.au
Doodeward v. Spence (1908) 6 Commonwealth Law Reports 406 (High Court of Australia, 1908).
R v. Kelly 3 (1998) All ER 741 at 749 (Rose, L. J., Court of Appeal, 1998).
PQ v. Australian Red Cross Society (1992) 1 VR 19 (1992).
Moore v. Regents of the University of California 793 P 2d 479 Cal SC (1990).
Law Reports (1867) 3 Queen's Bench 67 (1867).
(1884)12 Queen's Bench Division 247 (1884).
Lin, M. Conferring a federal property right in genetic material: stepping into the future with the genetic privacy. Am. J. Law Med. 109, 118 (1996).
Roche v. Douglas WASC (2000) 146 (Supreme Court of Western Australia, 2000).
Interim Report of The Inquiry into the Management of Care of Children Receiving Complex Heart Surgery at The Bristol Royal Infirmary, chair Professor Ian Kennedy, May 2000, Annex B para 66.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000.
Health Records Act 2001 (Vic).
Lindee, M. S. Genetic disease since 1945. Nature Rev. Genet. 1, 236–241 (2000).
Harris, J. W. Property and Justice (Clarendon, Oxford, 1996).
Skene, L. 'Sale' of DNA of people of Tonga. Genet. Law Monitor (UK) March–April, 3–6 (2001).
Kennedy, I. & Grubb, A. Medical Law 3rd Edn 2244–2250 (Butterworths, 2001).
Williams v. Williams 20 (1882) Chancery Division 659 (1882).
R v. Welsh (1974) RTR 478 (Court of Appeal, 1974).
R v. Rothery Criminal Law Rep. (1976) 691 (Court of Appeal, 1976).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Related links
FURTHER INFORMATION
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
January 2001: Report of the Independent Review Group on the Retention of Organs at Post-Mortem
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans
Reference on Protection of Human Genetic Information
The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Skene, L. Ownership of human tissue and the law. Nat Rev Genet 3, 145–148 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg725
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg725
This article is cited by
-
Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective
European Journal of Human Genetics (2003)
