Lecture Notes: Body Parts and the Law

Speaker: Imogen Gould, Professor in Medical Law, University of Oxford

Overview

• Main Question: Do you own your own body parts, and should you?
• The significance of legally owning body parts is the focus.
• Goal: Make a case for why the law should recognize ownership of body parts.

Why the Question Matters

• Legal implications of owning body parts.
• Interests in body parts due to their value and potential uses.
• Situations where interests in body parts conflict.

Definition and Use of Body Parts

• Body Parts Include:
  • Whole organs (e.g., kidneys) removed during life or after death.
  • Human biomaterials: blood, plasma, hair, skin, dandruff, cells, sperm.
• Historical Use:
  • Teeth for false teeth, hair for wigs.
  • Dissection for anatomical study.
• Modern Use:
  • Transplantation and medical research.
  • Biomaterials for research, forensic purposes, and crime investigation.

Importance of DNA in Biomaterials

• DNA reveals significant information such as predispositions to diseases, familial relationships.
• Concerns: Privacy issues due to the information embedded in DNA.

Interests and Conflicts

• Stakeholders:
  • Researchers, patients, law enforcement, general public.
• Conflicts:
  • Various interests lead to legal and ethical conflicts.

Legal Framework and Ownership Debate

• Traditional View: No property in a corpse - bodies are not subject to property rights.
• Development in Law:
  • Anatomy Act (1832) - regulated supply of bodies for dissection.
  • Common law principles - right to possess for burial vs. ownership.
  • Doodwood & Spence Case (1908) - Australian court recognized property rights in certain circumstances.

Work and Skill Exception

• Recognized when lawful work or skill changes a body from a corpse to something else (e.g., preserved specimens).

Legislative Framework

• Human Tissue Act (1961) - basic consent model for body part use.
• Human Tissue Act (2004) - detailed consent framework, preserves work and skill exception.

Case Studies

• Dobson v. North Tyneside Health Authority (1996): Issue of hospital destroying brain tissue - court rejected property claim.
• Kelly Case: Theft of body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons - courts recognize work and skill exception.

Modern Legal Challenges

• Situations arising when biomaterials are damaged or destroyed unlawfully.
• Yearworth Case: Men lost sperm samples due to negligence; courts used property law to grant remedy for psychiatric harm.

Arguments For and Against Ownership

• Against:
  • Bodies are special and should not be commodified.
  • Fear of commercialization eroding human dignity.
  • Wanting gifts of organs to remain non-commercial.
• For:
  • Recognizing property rights allows protection and legal clarity.
  • Property law can support control over personal materials without necessitating commercialization.

Conclusion

• Property law offers solutions to many legal issues concerning body parts.
• The law needs to balance between control, privacy, and commercial interests.
• Continuous legal and ethical evaluation is needed as biotechnologies evolve.