My body, my property

Abstract

Two recent cases raise the question: Should the body be considered a form of property? Patients generally do not share in the profits derived from the applications of research on their body parts and products. Nor is their consent for research required so long as the body part is unidentified and is removed in the course of treatment. A market in body parts and products would require consent to all categories of research and ensure that patients are protected from coercion and given the chance to be paid fairly for their contributions. Such a market might force us to rethink our policies prohibiting organ sales. Donors, recipients, and society will benefit from a market in body parts so long as owners--and no one else--retain control over their bodies.

KIE: The question of whether bodies and body parts should be considered a form of property is explored. The perspective that bodily parts and products are gifts, not compensable items of property, underlies researchers' use of a patient's tissue to produce potentially marketable products. Judges have reacted with horror to the idea that body parts may be property, and many people are concerned about what will happen to their extracorporeal body parts while they are alive and even after they die. Criticisms of a market for body parts focus on potential harms to organ donors and recipients, and to society and its most vulnerable members. Andrews contends that donors, recipients, and society can benefit from a market in body parts, provided that standards are instituted that require consent to all categories of research and that ensure that patients are protected from coercion and given the chance to be paid fairly for their contributions.