Property and the body: applying Honore

The Rights Network: 100 Years of the Hohfeldian Rights Analytic

This paper sets out to reconsider the Hohfeldian framework of rights in celebration of the centenary anniversary of their original publication. It begins by conceptualizing each of the Hohfeldian incidents or rights before outlining the molecular or complex structure of rights to “things”. I adopt a broad use of the term of “right” and apply it to Legal, Moral, Equitable and Human conceptions and constructions. It sets out an argument in favor of a further definitional model—in addition to Hohfeld’s scheme of opposites and correlatives—which focuses on the function of these conceptual rights. Finally, it sets out to provide a model of rights as forming a network within a given community and the exponential growth of “rights-connections” within an expanding community. This is used to frame responses to common criticisms of “rights talk” and the balance of benefits and burdens on account of such a rights network. Ultimately, this paper seeks to demonstrate the benefit, and indeed necessity, of the Hohfeldian model in any discussion of rights. Without it “rights talk” is debased and impoverished.

Access to biobanks: harmonization across biobank initiatives

PURPOSE

The current study investigates whether access arrangements relevant for biobanking contain clear information on key access conditions. It furthermore assesses the extent to which these access conditions are harmonized across biobank initiatives.

METHODS

A comparative analysis was conducted of access arrangements developed by 26 organizations, 36 biobank networks, and 20 biobanks worldwide.

RESULTS

The study demonstrates a lack of clear information on 21 key access conditions relevant for biobanking. Furthermore, it confirms that the harmonization across biobank initiatives is limited.

CONCLUSION

Many biobank initiatives need to be more transparent on how they apply the studied access conditions.

The trespasses of property law

The purpose of this article is to identify a limit to the appropriate application of property law to the use and storage of bodily material. I argue here that property law ought to be limited to protecting 'contingent rights' and that recent cases where property rights have been recognised in semen represent the application of property law beyond this limit. I also suggest how the law ought to develop in order to avoid the overextensive use of property law.

Organs as inheritable property?

It has been argued that organs should be treated as individual tradable property like other material possessions and assets, on the basis that this would promote individual freedom and increase efficiency in addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation. If organs are to be treated as property, should they be inheritable? This paper seeks to contribute to the idea of organs as inheritable property by providing a defence of a default of the family of a dead person as inheritors of transplantable organs. In the course of discussion, various succession rules for organs and their justifications will be suggested. We then consider two objections to organs as inheritable property. Our intention here is to provoke further thought on whether ownership of one's body parts should be assimilated to property ownership.

"That's a good question": university researchers' views on ownership and retention of human genetic specimens

PURPOSE

To explore the views of university-based investigators conducting genetic research with human specimens regarding ownership and retention of specimens, and knowledge of related institutional review board and university policies.

METHODS

Data were collected in three phases: a qualitative pilot study of 14 investigators; a web-based survey taken by 80 investigators; and follow-up, in-depth interviews with 12 survey respondents.

RESULTS

Investigators named a variety of single or multiple owners of human specimens and often expressed confusion regarding specimen ownership. Most associated ownership with rights to control, and responsibilities to maintain, specimens. Investigators viewed specimens as "precious" resources whose value could be increased through long-term or infinite retention, particularly in light of anticipated technological advances in genome science. Their views on ownership and retention were shaped by perceptions of institutional review board policies as immortalized in subject informed consent documents, rather than knowledge of actual policies.

CONCLUSION

Long-term retention of human specimens makes confusion about ownership particularly problematic. Given findings that investigators' views on ownership and retention are largely guided by their perception of university policies, the need for clear, consistent policies at the institution level is urgent.