The case John Moore v Regents of the University of California sets a precedent as
to the relationship between human body parts and property rights. In this case John
Moore was not successful in claim a right to his own body parts once they had been
removed for research purposes and the question has to be raised whether this decision
indicates that every part of the human body manipulated through modern biotechnology
cannot be regarded as the property of those from whom the information originated. This
article will discuss the issues of ownership and consent to uses made of genetic material
from a Gewirthian perspective. Gewirth’s thesis is that every agent, by the fact of
engaging in action, is logically committed to the acceptance of certain evaluative and
deontic judgements and ultimately of a supreme moral principle, the Principle of
Generic Consistency (PGC), which is addressed to every agent: Act in accord with the
generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself. From the examination of the
Moore case under the PGC, the decision made by the Supreme Court has seriously
infringed Moore’s human rights. It is submitted that Moore should be accorded his
human right and be rewarded the royalties in accordance with the market value created.
A new form of human rights, incorporated into intellectual property rights, can resolve
issues relating to informed consent issues, not just in respect of community rights but
also for individuals.
Relation:
NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management
