Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Moore v. Regents of the University of California is a landmark legal case in the field of biotechnology and bioethics, which addressed the issue of property rights over human cell lines and the question of whether individuals can claim ownership of their own cells once those cells are used in medical research. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of California in 1990.

Background

John Moore was a patient under the care of doctors at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center, where he was being treated for hairy cell leukemia, a rare form of cancer. During his treatment, Moore's doctors discovered that his cells were unique and had the potential for significant scientific and commercial value in producing proteins. Without Moore's informed consent, his doctors patented a cell line developed from his cells, which led to the development of a lucrative medical product.

Case Summary

Moore filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California and his doctors, claiming that he had property rights over his cells and that he should have been informed about the potential commercial use of his cells. The legal battle raised several important questions regarding the intersection of ethics, law, and the commercial use of human biological materials.

Decision

The Supreme Court of California ruled that while patients do not have property rights over their cells once they have been removed from their bodies, they do have the right to informed consent. This means that doctors and researchers must inform patients if their biological materials will be used for commercial purposes. The court's decision emphasized the importance of patient rights and informed consent in medical research, setting a precedent for future cases involving the use of human biological materials.

Impact

The decision in Moore v. Regents of the University of California has had a profound impact on the fields of medical research, biotechnology, and bioethics. It has led to increased transparency and ethical standards in the use of human biological materials in research, ensuring that patients are aware of and consent to the potential uses of their cells. The case has also sparked ongoing debate about the balance between scientific advancement and individual rights.

See Also

• Biotechnology
• Bioethics
• Property rights
• Informed consent
• Patient rights