In 1976, John Moore discovered he had hairy-cell leukemia. He underwent surgery by David Golde, a cancer researcher at UCLA, who thus removed his cancerous spleen. However after his surgery, Golde still requested that Moore come to Los Angeles every few months for a follow up exam where Golde would take Moore’s bone marrow, blood, and semen. During this time, Moore lived in Seattle so flying to LA all the time was a big hassle and then eventually refused to fly to LA anymore which angered Golde. Moore eventually called his lawyer to settle the matter and during this time he found out that Golde was developing and marketing a cell line called Mo. Gold had agreed to many biotech companies for stocks more than $3.5 million in worth to “commercially develop the Mo line’ (Skloot, 2010, p. 201). Moore was very upset by this and filed a lawsuit against Golde which troubled many scientists. Scientists believed that taking patient’s cells for research was totally understandable and helped further the medical field. If it was made illegal for doctors to take a patient’s cells without their permission, then they were afraid they would miss out from a big science changing revolution which happened in the case of HeLa cells. If patients had the right to their cells, then they could very much decline any doctors from using them which can be risky for scientists. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled against Moore, stating that when tissues are removed from you body, “any claim you might have had to owning them vanishes” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205).
I do not agree with the supreme court’s discussion. I feel that a person should have complete rights over their body and anything taken out of their body that could be used for research. Asking a patient’s consent to use their body cells is not a hard thing to do and if you thoroughly explain to the patient what their cells would be used for then that would reassure them that no negligence would be occurring. In Moore’s case, his spleen was taken out surgically and the supreme court stated that any tissue that is left behind in a doctor’s office or lab is considered “abandoned as waste, and anyone can take your garbage and sell it” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205). However those tissues needed to be taken out because of his hairy-cell leukemia and patients trust their doctors to take extreme care of them, but in this case Golde just used Moore’s cells to patent a new cell line to sell more millions of dollars. When it comes to Moore’s “hairy” cell leukemia, this leukemia is characterized by an accumulation of abnormal B lymphocytes and this caused Moore to develop bruises, a swelled belly, and bleeding gums. The common name of this was coined in 1966 because of the ‘“hairy” appearance of the malignant B cells under a microscope” (Mayo Clinic Staff, "Hairy cell leukemia”).
In addition to what Nishrat stated, the Supreme Court ruled that tissue was no longer a patient’s property after being removed, but they did agree with Moore on two counts: “lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty” (Skloot, 2010, p.205). When the lawsuit barely came out, many scientists feared that if tissue became a patient’s property then removing tissue without consent would be illegal. Taking the cells illegally involved many of the scientists having certain plans for cells and they would not mention those plans to their patients. Also Golde had breached his duty as a doctor and violated the trust between him and his patient. This lawsuit did point the “lack of regulation and patient protection” in tissue research (Skloot, 2010, p 205).
In 1976, John Moore discovered he had hairy-cell leukemia. He underwent surgery by David Golde, a cancer researcher at UCLA, who thus removed his cancerous spleen. However after his surgery, Golde still requested that Moore come to Los Angeles every few months for a follow up exam where Golde would take Moore’s bone marrow, blood, and semen. During this time, Moore lived in Seattle so flying to LA all the time was a big hassle and then eventually refused to fly to LA anymore which angered Golde. Moore eventually called his lawyer to settle the matter and during this time he found out that Golde was developing and marketing a cell line called Mo. Gold had agreed to many biotech companies for stocks more than $3.5 million in worth to “commercially develop the Mo line’ (Skloot, 2010, p. 201). Moore was very upset by this and filed a lawsuit against Golde which troubled many scientists. Scientists believed that taking patient’s cells for research was totally understandable and helped further the medical field. If it was made illegal for doctors to take a patient’s cells without their permission, then they were afraid they would miss out from a big science changing revolution which happened in the case of HeLa cells. If patients had the right to their cells, then they could very much decline any doctors from using them which can be risky for scientists. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled against Moore, stating that when tissues are removed from you body, “any claim you might have had to owning them vanishes” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205).
ReplyDeleteHi Nishrat, do you agree with the supreme court's discussion? Also, I'm curious as to why his cancer was called "hairy" cell leukemia.
DeleteI do not agree with the supreme court’s discussion. I feel that a person should have complete rights over their body and anything taken out of their body that could be used for research. Asking a patient’s consent to use their body cells is not a hard thing to do and if you thoroughly explain to the patient what their cells would be used for then that would reassure them that no negligence would be occurring. In Moore’s case, his spleen was taken out surgically and the supreme court stated that any tissue that is left behind in a doctor’s office or lab is considered “abandoned as waste, and anyone can take your garbage and sell it” (Skloot, 2010, p. 205). However those tissues needed to be taken out because of his hairy-cell leukemia and patients trust their doctors to take extreme care of them, but in this case Golde just used Moore’s cells to patent a new cell line to sell more millions of dollars. When it comes to Moore’s “hairy” cell leukemia, this leukemia is characterized by an accumulation of abnormal B lymphocytes and this caused Moore to develop bruises, a swelled belly, and bleeding gums. The common name of this was coined in 1966 because of the ‘“hairy” appearance of the malignant B cells under a microscope” (Mayo Clinic Staff, "Hairy cell leukemia”).
DeleteIn addition to what Nishrat stated, the Supreme Court ruled that tissue was no longer a patient’s property after being removed, but they did agree with Moore on two counts: “lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty” (Skloot, 2010, p.205). When the lawsuit barely came out, many scientists feared that if tissue became a patient’s property then removing tissue without consent would be illegal. Taking the cells illegally involved many of the scientists having certain plans for cells and they would not mention those plans to their patients. Also Golde had breached his duty as a doctor and violated the trust between him and his patient. This lawsuit did point the “lack of regulation and patient protection” in tissue research (Skloot, 2010, p 205).
ReplyDelete