Moore versus Regents of The University of California is considered a landmark case because it was the first time that a court was faced with the ethical issues associated with biotechnology research and practices, which until this point, had remained mostly theoretical.
In 1976, John Moore, a businessman from Seattle was diagnosed with hairy-cell leukaemia at The University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center by a well-known oncologist at the time, David W. Golde. As part of his treatment, Moore’s enlarged spleen was surgically removed, after which his disease went into remission .
It was when Moore became aware of the fact that Golde had applied for a cell patent line that had been produced from the cells and marrow extracted from his body during the procedures; the patent was granted in 1984 . However, Golde had not obtained Moore’s consent to use the extracted biological material for future research.
Moore filed a conversion as well as a lack of informed consent claim against Golde’s patent. While initially the state court dismissed Moore’s suit, the Court of Appeal however reversed the verdict under the rationale that it is the physician’s duty to fully inform all patients if any excised materials from their body were going to be used for future medical research purposes in which substantial future earnings are expected by the researchers .
I agree with the court’s decision since the doctrine of informed consent is based on the principle that all treatments (along with their benefits and possible risks) provided to a patient must be clearly stated; treatments or medications other than the ones to which the patient has agreed to cannot be administered. Similarly, any materials excised for a designated purpose, cannot be used for other procedures. This implies that Moore’s excised cells, as far as he was informed, were to be disposed off and not utilized for any medical research. The court also factored in that Golde was aware of the profit potential of using Moore’s body cells at the time of administering the treatment, as well as during the years of follow-up visits for which Moore had to fly in to California .
The Appeals Court upheld the initial verdict pertaining to the conversion claim and several reasons were cited for this. First, in order to prove a conversion tort, Moore had to prove that his ownership rights of his body cells had been interfered with. This is because California laws actually prohibit a person from retaining ownership of body materials, tissues or organs after their removal and Moore could not have reasonably expected to maintain possession of the cancerous cells, therefore there is no foundation for a conversion tort . Secondly, the patented cell line was drastically different from the cells extracted by Golde from Moore’s body, and therefore the extent of similarity between both was limited. The court was also not in favour of imposing substantial fines on medical researchers working on human cells as this would set a precedent and severely damage the scope of medical research . Also, since there was consent that Golde’s patent would greatly benefit a large number of cancer patients, the information and research’s potential for greater societal good outweighed Moore’s ownership claims of the materials .
While I agree with the court’s position that scientists working to discover cures and improved treatments are rendering a crucial humanitarian service, I also believe that it is every treating physician’s responsibility to ensure that patients are informed in full about the medical care they are receiving. If there is possibility that their body materials can aid in the development of treatments, then I strongly believe that they should be given a percentage of the profits as well since they were the ones who endured the suffering.
It cannot be the patient’s responsibility to ask about patents and medical research at a time when their own health and even their life is at stake. Like Moore, patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases are so traumatized that they rely on their doctors to cure them and put their well-being at the top of their priority list.
Works Cited
Dorney, Maureen S. "Mooe v. the Regents of the University of California:Balancing the Need for Biotechnology Innovation against the Right of Informed Consent." Berkely Technology Law Journal (1990): 334-365. Web. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z385957
Ferrell, J.E. "Who Owns John Moore`s Spleen?" Chicago Tribune 18 February 1990: 1-3. Web. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-18/features/9001140537_1_mo-cell-line-blood-cells-spleen
