Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Web of Science®
|Property in tissue (again) and negligent conception
|Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2014; 11(4):437-440
|It seems that a recurring theme in our Recent Developments is the issue of property rights in tissue (see, for example, Stewart 2009; Richards, Madden, and Cockburn 2011; Giancaspro 2014). This has most commonly been associated with access to reproductive material and begins from the presumption of no property in tissue. A recent decision for the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, whilst unsuccessful on largely procedural grounds, warrants a brief note because it adds to the general discourse on property in tissue and adopts a different approach. Piljak Estate v Abraham 2014 ONSC 2893 addressed the question of whether or not the family of a deceased person could access liver tissue for genetic testing. The property question arose because the family applied for access to the tissue under Rule 32.01 (Rules of Civil Procedure) and in order for the tissue to fall within the ambit of the Rule it must be defined as real or personal property.
Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis
Compensation and Redress
Health Care Costs
New South Wales
Standard of Care
|© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd 2014
|Appears in Collections:
|Aurora harvest 8
Files in This Item:
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.