Roche Patricia
Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, Talbot Building, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
HEC Forum. 2010 Sep;22(3):197-209. doi: 10.1007/s10730-010-9137-2.
This paper analyzes court rulings on tissue samples as property and critiques objections that have been raised to the recognition of DNA samples as personal property. The cases are: Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1988, 1990), Greenberg v. Miami Children's Research Institute (2003), and Washington University v. Catalona (2007). The paper argues that it is possible for the law to support both individual privacy and property rights in DNA, recognizing nevertheless that some unresolved questions remain, including what exercising those rights means on a practical level. Finally, it offers suggestions for changes in law based on those considerations.
本文分析了关于组织样本作为财产的法庭裁决,并对将DNA样本认定为个人财产所提出的反对意见进行了批判。相关案例包括:摩尔诉加利福尼亚大学董事会案(1988年、1990年)、格林伯格诉迈阿密儿童研究所案(2003年)以及华盛顿大学诉卡塔拉诺案(2007年)。本文认为,法律有可能在支持个人隐私和DNA财产权的同时,也认识到仍有一些未解决的问题,包括在实际层面行使这些权利意味着什么。最后,基于这些考虑,本文提出了法律变革的建议。