moore v regents of the university of california

asalmes

3 min read

·

27-03-2025

5

0

Share

Meta Description: Dive into the pivotal case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, exploring its impact on informed consent, property rights over one's cells, and the ethical considerations surrounding medical research. Learn about the legal battle, the court's decision, and the lasting implications of this landmark case. Discover the key arguments and their significance in bioethics and patient rights.

The Case of John Moore: A Battle Over Body Parts and Profits

The 1990 case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California remains a landmark legal battle concerning informed consent and the ownership of one's own cells. John Moore, a leukemia patient, unknowingly became the source of a lucrative cell line developed by researchers at UCLA. This case profoundly impacted medical research ethics and patient rights.

The Facts of the Case

John Moore sought treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at UCLA. His physician, Dr. David Golde, discovered Moore possessed exceptionally valuable cells. Without Moore's full knowledge or informed consent regarding the commercial potential of his cells, Golde and his research team used Moore's cells to develop a patented cell line, resulting in substantial profits.

Moore, upon discovering the commercial exploitation of his cells and the lack of informed consent regarding their use, sued the Regents of the University of California. His lawsuit alleged breach of fiduciary duty, lack of informed consent, and conversion (the unauthorized use of his property).

Legal Arguments and the Court's Decision

Moore's case presented complex legal questions. Did he possess property rights over his own cells once removed from his body? Did the researchers have an ethical and legal obligation to fully inform him about the potential commercial value of his cells before using them?

The California Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Moore on the conversion claim. The court held that while a patient has the right to informed consent regarding their medical treatment, this right does not extend to ownership of the cells once removed from the body. They reasoned that discarded cells lack the necessary characteristics to be considered personal property.

However, the court did acknowledge the breach of fiduciary duty and the importance of informed consent in the context of medical research. This aspect of the ruling is crucial. The court emphasized the significance of physicians disclosing any potential financial interests related to their patients' treatment.

Implications and Lasting Legacy of Moore v. Regents

The Moore v. Regents decision, though not fully granting ownership of cells, significantly impacted the landscape of informed consent and medical research.

• Informed Consent Strengthened: The case heightened awareness of the need for comprehensive informed consent, particularly when researchers anticipate commercial benefits from patient samples. Researchers must be transparent about potential financial gains related to patient samples.
• Focus on Fiduciary Duty: The recognition of a breach of fiduciary duty underscored the ethical responsibilities of physicians to their patients. Physicians now face increased scrutiny in situations where personal financial interest overlaps with patient care.
• Property Rights Debate: The ruling, while rejecting Moore's property claim, sparked ongoing debates about the ownership of human biological materials and the ethical implications of commercializing human tissues.
• Ethical Guidelines in Research: The case prompted many institutions and research organizations to review and strengthen their ethical guidelines concerning informed consent and the use of patient samples in research.

Questions Raised by the Case:

• What constitutes sufficient informed consent in medical research involving potential commercial gain?
• How can the balance be struck between advancing scientific knowledge and protecting patient rights and autonomy?
• Should patients have a right to share in the profits derived from the commercial use of their cells?

Conclusion:

Moore v. Regents of the University of California remains a highly influential case, shaping the legal and ethical considerations surrounding medical research and patient rights. While it didn't establish blanket ownership of cells, the ruling significantly strengthened informed consent requirements and emphasized the crucial role of fiduciary duty in the doctor-patient relationship. The case continues to fuel ethical and legal discussions about the complexities of medical research, commercialization, and patient autonomy. The ongoing debate underscores the continuing need for transparent communication and ethical practices in the realm of biomedical research.