On 6 Mar 2009 at 10:25, Mike Palij wrote: > As the NY Times observes in its "On This Day": > http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0306.html#article > > For those unfamiliar with the "Dred Scott Decision", there is an > entry on Wikipedia (standard disclaimers apply): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_Decision
To bring this up-to-date, and entering into a very difficult issue with only limited knowledge (how unusual for me!), I'd like to draw attention to the John Moore case decided by the California Supreme Court (John Moore vs Regents of the University of California, July 9, 1990) (at http://tinyurl.com/awxno9 ) They decided in their wisdom that Moore did not have ownership of his own tissues. In fact, a cell line derived from his tissues was a commercial hot property, worth at least millions, and possibly billions of dollars, none of which would accrue to Moore. And if a company can have the right to your tissues, a right which you yourself do not have, couldn't a company own _all_ of your tissues, i.e. own YOU? The issue is raised most recently in a BioNew (UK) commentary: "To hold property in one's own body is a strange philosophical conundrum as 'who' is doing the 'owning' of 'oneself'? Ethically it is also problematic, as does the 'ownership' of parts of bodies suggest that whole bodies and so persons can be owned? This was the worry of the judges who rejected Moore's claim to have property rights in his body" See http://www.bionews.org.uk/commentary.lasso?storyid=4219 _Science_ (not freely available) reported on this back in 1990. See: Barinaga, M. (1990). Science, July 20, p. 239. A Muted Victory for the Biotech Industry: A California court has ruled that patients don't own tissues removed from their bodies-but questions of consent remain On-line, you can check http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/3/5/1581.pdf But perhaps the best source is this great readable essay: Taking The Least of You Rebecca Skloot April 16, 2006 New York Times Magazine http://home.earthlink.net/~rskloot/TakingTheLeast.pdf (If you don't have time for the whole thing, skip down to the Moore case headed "The $3 Billion Man") or just read Michael Crichton's last novel, _Next_ (2006), where a disguised version of the Moore case figures prominently. Or skip to the afterword. He didn't like the decision very much. Oh yes. Priscilla Wald has a review which I haven't been able to get my hands on which alludes to the slavery issue. She calls the issue (the decision?) "bioslavery". See http://tinyurl.com/dctptm Wald, Priscilla. What's in a Cell?: John Moore's Spleen and the Language of Bioslavery New Literary History - Volume 36, Number 2, Spring 2005, pp. 205-225 Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
