In 1990, a groundbreaking lawsuit, Moore v. Regents of the University of California, pitted the Regents of the University of California, represented by the California Attorney General, against John Moore, a patient treated at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center. The case centered around Moore’s claim that his physician, David Golde, and the Regents had illegally profited from the patenting and commercialization of a cell line derived from his spleen cells without his consent.
Moore v. Regents of California
Background:
Moore v. Regents of California (1990) is a seminal case in the field of medical ethics and the right to informed consent. In 1983, John Moore, a leukemia patient, entered a research study at UCLA Medical Center. During the study, doctors removed Moore’s spleen and lymph nodes, which were used to extract and patent a genetically engineered cell line known as the “Mo cell.” Moore later sued the university and its researchers, alleging that they had used his cells without his informed consent and that they had illegally profited from his genetic material.
Procedural History:
- District Court: The district court dismissed Moore’s case, holding that the doctors were not required to obtain his consent for the use of his cells.
- Court of Appeals: The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that Moore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his genetic material and that the researchers had failed to obtain his informed consent before using his cells.
- Supreme Court: The Supreme Court declined to rule on the informed consent issue, instead focusing on whether Moore had standing to sue for a violation of his privacy rights. The Court held that Moore did not have standing to sue because he had not suffered any economic or physical harm as a result of the researchers’ use of his cells.
The Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court’s holding in Moore v. Regents of California was based on the following reasoning:
- Standing to Sue: Moore lacked standing because he had not shown that he had suffered any tangible, concrete injury as a result of the researchers’ use of his cells.
- Privacy Rights: The Court did not rule on whether Moore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his genetic material. However, the Court did note that the use of a patient’s cells for commercial purposes could potentially implicate privacy interests.
Impact of Moore v. Regents of California:
Moore v. Regents of California has had a significant impact on the field of medical ethics and the right to informed consent:
- Informed Consent: The case has raised awareness of the importance of obtaining informed consent from patients before using their genetic material for research purposes.
- Commercialization of Human Tissue: Moore v. Regents of California has helped to establish the legal principle that human tissue cannot be commercialized without the consent of the donor.
- Public Policy: The case has sparked a debate about the ethical issues surrounding the use of human tissue for commercial purposes.
Legal Framework for Informed Consent in Research:
Today, the following legal framework governs the use of human tissue in research:
- Federal Regulations: The Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46) requires researchers to obtain informed consent from participants in research studies that involve the use of human subjects.
- State Laws: Many states have laws that specifically govern the use of human tissue for research purposes, including requirements for obtaining informed consent from donors.
Table of Significant Cases:
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Moore v. Regents of California (1990) | Plaintiff lacked standing to sue for violation of privacy rights. |
| Washington v. Harper (1990) | Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical records. |
| McHugh v. University of Vermont and State Agricultural College (2003) | Plaintiff had a property interest in his genetic material and could sue for conversion. |
Question 1:
What is the significance of the Supreme Court ruling in Moore v. Regents of California?
Answer:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Moore v. Regents of California (1990) established that patients have the right to control their own medical information, including genetic information.
Question 2:
Which legal doctrine was established by the Moore v. Regents of California ruling?
Answer:
Moore v. Regents of California established the doctrine of informed consent, which requires healthcare providers to fully inform patients about the risks and benefits of medical procedures before obtaining their consent.
Question 3:
How did the Moore v. Regents of California case impact the field of genetics?
Answer:
The Moore v. Regents of California ruling has had a profound impact on the field of genetics by emphasizing the importance of patient autonomy and privacy in genetic testing and research.
And there you have it, folks! The landmark case of Moore v. Regents of California, where a woman’s right to her own body collided with the potential risks of medical research. It’s a tale of science, law, and the ongoing debate about where the line between personal autonomy and the greater good should be drawn.
Thanks for sticking with me through this legal journey. If you enjoyed this deep dive into constitutional law, be sure to check back for more thought-provoking reads. I’ll see you soon with another fascinating case that will make you question your perspectives and appreciate the complexities of our legal system.