The lawsuit that took place was an ownership lawsuit over cells. Moore’s cells were taken by his local doctor, David Moore, and used for further research and for a profit. He had developed cancer on his spleen and his doctor had advised him that the complete removal of the spleen was the best option for him, it was finally removed, and he told the doctor to dispose of any tissue. After the surgery Moore went back for follow up exams, and Golde would take more samples of bodily fluid, after a while Moore grew suspicious. Then he was given a consent form, after the first one he grew even more suspicious and then when given the second he decided to give no consent to Golde to use his cells for research. After this event, there was even more trouble in Moore and Golde’s relationship. But before Moore was able to get the new consent form, the one that he had disagreed to give Golde consent on, Golde had already filed for a patent on Moore’s cells. When Moore discovered this patent he decided to sue Golde, on grounds of theft, as Moore claimed that the cells were rightfully his property. (Skloot 199-203)
I do believe that Moore’s case was influential for all other similar lawsuits. People learn from example, and if they see that one person is determined to go through the trouble and time consuming task to sue his doctor then others who have the same or similar issues will do so also. No matter the result of Moore’s lawsuit, people can see him as a type of role model and will follow in his footsteps. People are very determined and hard headed to let something this important go, if they saw that Moore did all he could, but still lost, they'll believe that they'll have more luck and prosper in their future cases. So yes I do believe that Moore’s lawsuit is what set others up for patenting lawsuits.
A few years before Moore's lawsuit, scientist Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty created a bacterium that was genetically engineered to consume oil. Chakrabarty wanted a patent, but it was denied because of the reasoning that living organisms are not inventions. His lawyers argued that the bacteria wasn't naturally occurring and was created by Chakrabarty by changing the bacteria using "human ingenuity" (Skloot 589). Chakrabarty's victory created the possibility of patenting other living things like cell lines, and it wouldn't require getting permission from the donor (Skloot 590). This lawsuit was what started the base for patenting biological products and selling them; Moore's case would be seen obsolete.
The lawsuit that took place was an ownership lawsuit over cells. Moore’s cells were taken by his local doctor, David Moore, and used for further research and for a profit. He had developed cancer on his spleen and his doctor had advised him that the complete removal of the spleen was the best option for him, it was finally removed, and he told the doctor to dispose of any tissue. After the surgery Moore went back for follow up exams, and Golde would take more samples of bodily fluid, after a while Moore grew suspicious. Then he was given a consent form, after the first one he grew even more suspicious and then when given the second he decided to give no consent to Golde to use his cells for research. After this event, there was even more trouble in Moore and Golde’s relationship. But before Moore was able to get the new consent form, the one that he had disagreed to give Golde consent on, Golde had already filed for a patent on Moore’s cells. When Moore discovered this patent he decided to sue Golde, on grounds of theft, as Moore claimed that the cells were rightfully his property. (Skloot 199-203)
ReplyDeleteHI Hector, but Moore lost his lawsuit based on the Supreme Court's decision. Do you think his case still influenced any future patenting laws?
DeleteI do believe that Moore’s case was influential for all other similar lawsuits. People learn from example, and if they see that one person is determined to go through the trouble and time consuming task to sue his doctor then others who have the same or similar issues will do so also. No matter the result of Moore’s lawsuit, people can see him as a type of role model and will follow in his footsteps. People are very determined and hard headed to let something this important go, if they saw that Moore did all he could, but still lost, they'll believe that they'll have more luck and prosper in their future cases. So yes I do believe that Moore’s lawsuit is what set others up for patenting lawsuits.
DeleteA few years before Moore's lawsuit, scientist Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty created a bacterium that was genetically engineered to consume oil. Chakrabarty wanted a patent, but it was denied because of the reasoning that living organisms are not inventions. His lawyers argued that the bacteria wasn't naturally occurring and was created by Chakrabarty by changing the bacteria using "human ingenuity" (Skloot 589). Chakrabarty's victory created the possibility of patenting other living things like cell lines, and it wouldn't require getting permission from the donor (Skloot 590). This lawsuit was what started the base for patenting biological products and selling them; Moore's case would be seen obsolete.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete