Reference no: EM133334025

In 1976, John Moore was treated in a hospital in California for a rare type of leukemia (a condition in which white blood cells become cancerous and grow at an advanced rate). Moore was treated, his spleen was removed, and his leukemia went into remission. He periodically returned to California to have blood drawn, which he thought was part of his treatment. Moore signed a consent form to allow the doctors to conduct research on his cells. The doctors discovered that Moore's cells produced a unique protein that could be used to treat certain types of cancer. Using genetic engineering, the doctors produced a pharmaceutical product with promising medical uses and high commercial profit. The doctors sold the product to a company that would investigate and market the product. Moore was never informed about the use of his cells or their potential commercial value. Moore filed a lawsuit, charging that he did not give informed consent to use his "property" because the doctors did not provide enough information needed to make informed consent (they did not tell him that they may sell products retrieved from his cells). In addition, because of the lack of informed consent, Moore argued that his relationship with his physicians was breached.

1. Do the doctor's owe some of their earnings to Moore? If so, how much? If not, why?

2. Do you think the doctor's did something wrong? If you were the judge in this case, how would you rule? Why? (Don't worry - you are not required to look into the actual legalities of the issue or required to spend time looking up specific case laws - that is beyond the scope of the course, unless you are interested and just want to know, then by all means look it up and share the info you find!)

3. Do we own our DNA like property? For example, if you have a tooth pulled, or your appendix removed, and the surgeons keep your tissue, should you be compensated if they make a profit off of the research they perform?