August 10, 2009

Genetic Patents: Is It OK to Patent Human Nature?

logo.jpg Several gene research groups have taken legal action against Myriad Genetics & Laboratories, the University of Utah, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in an ostensible attempt to end human gene patenting in the United States. The suit centers around two human genes with ties to breast and ovarian cancer for which the University was granted seven patents and licensed them to Myriad.

The objective of the plaintiffs appears to be to reverse over 20 years of precedent providing for the allowance of patents on human genes. Thousands of patents have been issued on human genes and a victory for the gene research groups would result in a seismic shift in the legal landscape.

I think that we should carefully scrutinize what we consider to be patentable human gene processes. However, I strongly believe that innovation should be rewarded, and that access to technology should have minimal limits. Researchers should be fairly compensated for their efforts and the public should also enjoy the benefits of progress.

Eliminating the potential for patents altogether would remove a considerable incentive for entities to invest R&D money into exploratory projects, and ironically may prevent breakthroughs from occurring in the first place. On the other hand, it is important to ensure that people aren’t excluded from the use of new gene technology to the point that public health suffers. For that reason, it is critical that both advancement and access are maximized!

Do you think human genes should be patentable? Please post your comments or contact me to discuss!

May 27, 2009

UCLA In Hot Water Again Over Misuse of Body Parts

model.jpg
How did UCLA let it happen again? In 2004, in the landmark case of
Moore v. Regents of the University of California the medical research facility failed to obtain the informed consent of John Moore, before taking rare cells from his body for their own financial gain. Two weeks ago, Ernest Nelson was convicted for grand theft and seven other counts. He had taken cadavers donated to UCLA, carved them up, and sold those parts to biomedical research companies. Nelson received $1.5 million for his "service." Essentially, he was stealing what's free. I published an article entitled, "Stealing What's Free," wherein I discussed problems with the outlaw of compensation to body parts donors, while medical research facilities reap astronomical economic benefits from these "donations."

With UCLA still suffering effects of the bad publicity brought by the Moore case, how could they be so careless? They have had a cadaver donation program since 1950, and they received about 175 bodies every year. A paralegal for UCLA blames the program's lax supervision for this event, which led to the second suspension of the program in a decade.

For one of the country's leading medical research facilities, UCLA's sloppiness is atrocious. Without the generous and selfless gifts from people who donate their bodies to science, many of our medical advances would never have been possible. And because the dead cannot defend themselves or object to the ultimate use of their bodies, they deserve the utmost respect. And here we have one of the country's leading medical research facilities absolutely oblivious to the treatment of these anatomical gifts. Cases like this incense me!

How does UCLA's actions strike you? Please post your comments or contact me to discuss!

April 10, 2009

Human Organ Donor Found Through Craigslist

The phrase, “you can find anything on the internet," now has a new meaning thanks to
Craigslist. The free classified website has brought together buyers and sellers dealing in boats, automobiles, and pets. Recently, Craigslist has also facilitated a human organ transplant.

Recently, Daniel Flood of New York received a successful kidney transplant from a living donor. After his doctor notified him that he would soon need dialysis or a kidneys transplant, Flood signed up on a 6 year transplant waiting list. In the meantime, Flood’s daughters placed an ad on Craigslist seeking help in the form of a kidney donor. Responding to the ad, Dawn Verdict of California learned that her blood type matched Flood's and agreed to donate one of her kidneys.

Before Verdict responded, the Floods received many replies that were either not credible or were offers to sell a kidney for a price, which is illegal in the United States.

I recently published an article entitled Stealing What’s Free: Exploring Compensation to Body Parts Sources for Their Contribution to Profitable Biomedical Research, which discusses issues surrounding compensation for organ providers, also known as sources. Currently, organ donations are acceptable, but law prohibits a person from charging money for an organ. Supporters of the law argue that allowing sources to sell their organs would create a “market” for human body parts, which would potentially cause a drop in price due to increased supply.

Others believe that sources should be able to receive compensation because nearly everyone else involved (surgeons, transporters, etc) in the process of an organ transplant is permitted to do so.

February 9, 2009

Reclaiming Body Parts: Taking Back Gifts?

Recently, a Long Island doctor donated his kidney to his wife to save her life. Eight years and one extra-marital affair later, the doctor demanded the return of his kidney or $1.5million in compensation in their divorce lawsuit. His claims are presuming that his kidney will always be his property, and that this property was "on loan" to his wife.

In California, a man attempted to cut out the breast implants he bought for his ex-girlfriend. He asserts that he was trying to recover what rightfully belonged to him, since he paid for the augmentation. The ex-girlfriend suffered six stab wounds; the scorned lover is being prosecuted for attempted murder.

I published an article about compensating people who contribute body parts for the advancement of science and medicine, entitled Stealing What's Free: Exploring Compensation to Body Parts Sources for Their Contribution to Profitable Biomedical Research. In general, these contributions are considered gifts: the source does not get compensated, and does not get the body parts back. In analyzing the two headline-making stories above, I would fathom a guess that these guys are out of luck. The intent of donating the kidney and funding the breast augmentation was to give a gift--once given, it can't be taken back. From the reports I've read, I would be shocked if a court ordered these women to undergo surgery to return the gifts.

January 19, 2009

Teen Surviving 118 Days Without a Heart

I recently wrote an article proposing a structure to compensate those who contribute body parts to medical research. It was entitled, "Stealing What's Free: Exploring Compensation to Body Parts Sources for Their Contribution to Profitable Biomedical Research," and it was published in 2006 in Franklin Pierce Law Center's Law Review journal. I have always had a fascination with biomedical advances, and I wrote this article with those interests in mind.

Five hundred miles from my office in Jacksonville, Florida, a 14 year-old girl in Miami made headlines for surviving 118 days without a heart. When her doctors discovered she had an enlarged heart, she had to have a heart transplant. Unfortunately, when her body rejected the new heart, she had to be put on artificial heart pumps until she was strong enough to undergo a second transplant surgery.

Although this procedure is routinely done for adult patients, this case was unusual, because this procedure is rarely done with pediatric patients. If not for advances in medicine, this girl's chances of survival would likely have been miniscule. The public ought to be better educated about medical advances, and encouraged to participate and contribute in biomedical research. Investments in research facilities and universities ought to continue, such that advances can continue, and improve or prolong lives.