Property Interests in Human Tissue: Is the Law Still an Ass?
2016
In this chapter, we ask whether the law is still ‘an ass’ when it comes to its
treatment of human bodily materials. We start with an historical snapshot of
the law in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2002 when Brazier made this observation. Her comments at the time must be understood within the wider context
of the then lack of clarity in the law generally regarding bodily materials, whether
from the living or deceased. We then examine subsequent developments in the
jurisprudence relating to property and bodily materials to see how the legal
landscape has changed, focusing on the recent shift towards the recognition of
limited ‘source’ property rights which has occurred. Our analysis draws, in
particular, on the judgments in four recent cases: one in England, Jonathan
Yearworth and Others v North Bristol NHS Trust ; 3 and three from Australia: Bazley v Wesley Monash IVF Pty Ltd ; 4 Jocelyn Edwards: Re the estate of the late
Mark Edwards ; 5 and Re H, AE. 6 In examining these cases, we demonstrate how
the work/skill exception has been criticised in the English case and subject to
a novel repurposing in the Australian ones.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
0
References
0
Citations
NaN
KQI