When having legal ownership of one’s cells, one can handle them in any manner they decide on. If a patient decided to allow a researcher to use his/her cells, then they would receive most of the profit. It would be optional to pay the researcher since they would be doing the job. Another pro is that the patient will be identified, if and when, they are involved in a scientific study. There will be trust between the patient and the doctor since the doctor wouldn’t be able to secretly take the patients cells. The stake of illegally taking cells would be too high and the doctors would definitely decline taking the persons cells. If the doctors do need to take cells, the patient will need to know where the tissue is, since it’s their property. Yet the cons may be that the patient wouldn’t know how to handle their cells. How could a regular person with unclear understanding be able to know how to handle a certain type of cells? Another con would be, when the cells are removed from their body. The Supreme Court of California stated that once tissues are removed from one’s body “any claim you might have had to owning [the tissue] vanishes” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205).
More cons for giving patients legal ownership of their cells are having researchers being sued for theft of tissue samples, losing the chance to do research with the cells and stopping the progress of science. Cultured cells wouldn't exist and no money would made (Skloot 596-597). Pros are giving control of the cells to the patient and not invading in their personal privacy as a human and dignity (Skloot 600). People could make a profit and a business from their own body like Slavin who stated a company ,Essential Biologicals, and ,to find a cure for his hepatitis B, paired up with a virologist Blumberg who did make a hepatitis B vaccine (Skloot 594).
When having legal ownership of one’s cells, one can handle them in any manner they decide on. If a patient decided to allow a researcher to use his/her cells, then they would receive most of the profit. It would be optional to pay the researcher since they would be doing the job. Another pro is that the patient will be identified, if and when, they are involved in a scientific study. There will be trust between the patient and the doctor since the doctor wouldn’t be able to secretly take the patients cells. The stake of illegally taking cells would be too high and the doctors would definitely decline taking the persons cells. If the doctors do need to take cells, the patient will need to know where the tissue is, since it’s their property. Yet the cons may be that the patient wouldn’t know how to handle their cells. How could a regular person with unclear understanding be able to know how to handle a certain type of cells? Another con would be, when the cells are removed from their body. The Supreme Court of California stated that once tissues are removed from one’s body “any claim you might have had to owning [the tissue] vanishes” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205).
ReplyDeleteMore cons for giving patients legal ownership of their cells are having researchers being sued for theft of tissue samples, losing the chance to do research with the cells and stopping the progress of science. Cultured cells wouldn't exist and no money would made (Skloot 596-597). Pros are giving control of the cells to the patient and not invading in their personal privacy as a human and dignity (Skloot 600). People could make a profit and a business from their own body like Slavin who stated a company ,Essential Biologicals, and ,to find a cure for his hepatitis B, paired up with a virologist Blumberg who did make a hepatitis B vaccine (Skloot 594).
ReplyDelete