Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (1):1-2 (2014)

In the wake of three high-profile judicial decisions concerning the use of human biological materials, the editors of this collection felt in 2011 that there was a need for detailed scholarly exploration of the ethical and legal implications of these decisions. For centuries, it seemed that in Australia and England and Wales, individuals did not have any proprietary interests in their excised tissue. Others might acquire such interests, but there had been no clear decision on the rights or otherwise of the persons from whom the tissue was obtained. In 2009, however, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales recognised a limited exception to this position in Jonathan Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust . In that case, the Court held that the appellants, who had deposited semen samples for freezing before they undertook treatment for cancer, had “for the purposes of a claim in negligence … ownership of the sperm which they had ejaculated”. One year later, the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, took a similarly property-based approach to determining how a semen sample stored shortly before death should be dealt in Bazley v Wesley Monash IVF . According to that court, the co-executors of the estate had sufficient proprietary interests in the semen to legally demand its return from the laboratory where it was held. In 2011, the New South Wales Supreme Court similarly found that the widow of a recently deceased man had a right to possession of his semen in Joceyln Edwards; Re the estate of the late Mark Edwards .In the editors’ view, these decisions signalled a turning point in the Anglo-Australian jurisprudence in this area, taking the law a step beyond the decisions of the late 20th century such as R v Kelly , in which possessory rights were found …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2013-101945
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,214
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Commodification of Human Reproductive Materials.D. B. Resnik - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (6):388-393.
The Body in Bioethics.Alastair V. Campbell - 2009 - Routledge-Cavendish.
Biotechnology and Commodification Within Health Care.Mark J. Hanson - 1999 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (3):267 – 287.
Academic Personality and the Commodification of Academic Texts.Andrew Alexandra - 2002 - Ethics and Information Technology 4 (4):279-286.


Added to PP index

Total views
14 ( #732,190 of 2,507,566 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,263 of 2,507,566 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes