Property Rights?

Sounds Suspiciously like Property Treatment: Does Human Tissue Fit within the Common Law Concept of Property? - [2005] UTSLRev 3; (2005) 7 UTS Law Review 62

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRev/2005/3.html

University of Technology, Sydney Law Review

The article talks about the law set forth in Australia to limit the use of tissue samples. The Aussie's seem to be bothered by the fact that a part of the body can be seen as property. Their ethical guidelines are proposed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. They cannot enforce a law on anybody since they only propose ethics, so nobody can seek legal action against a person or institution who has misused their tissue. The courts just recently developed a general rule against property in human bodies and their parts, with some exceptions. A major exception allows human tissue to property only when it has been preserved through the application of work or skill. The situation about property rights of human tissue is growing in Australia and the courts cannot keep up. Example - Human tissue is now used to develop therapeutic products, yet the only controls on who may buy or sell are the Human Tissue Acts' prohibitions on sale without processing. When organs and bones are kept for any reason, if an individual asks for the return of loved ones body parts for burial or cremation, it is entirely up to the researcher or hospital to return the parts. There is no law requiring them to return the parts if they do not feel the need to. Another example of this predicament are the museums who hold the remains of the Aborigines. The natives want their ancestors remains back so that they may lay them to rest, but the museums refuse to give up the remains on the basis that showing their culture is more important than the resting place of their ancestors. I feel that they are crossing some lines and need to pass laws that allow a little slack for both sides. In the case of the Aborigines, they have every right to ask for their ancestors bones back so that they can follow through with their religious beliefs. The doctors and researchers should have to give the remains back to those who ask if it is validated in a court case.