Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different types—Different rights

Distinguishing between different perspectives on ownership of biological material

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on a social construction theory of ownership in biological material this paper discusses which differences in biological material might motivate differences in treatment and ownership rights. The analysis covers both the perspective of the person from whom the material originates and that of the potential recipient. Seven components of bundles of rights, drawing on the analytical tradition of Tony Honoré, and their relationship to various types of biological material are investigated. To exemplify these categories the cases of a heart, a kidney, stem cells and hair are used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an example of the kinds of problems that can occur see e.g. Ref. [22].

  2. For a more in-depth analysis of this argument see Ref. [5]

  3. See e.g. Ref. [14]

  4. See e.g. Refs. [25; vol. 352, 28]

  5. For a detailed discussion see Ref. [9]

  6. Organs from the living.

  7. By non-rivalrous I mean things that can be shared without compromising the owner’s ability to use them.

  8. The actual effects would of course be an empirical question.

  9. Any detailed analysis of this concept is far beyond the scope of this paper.

  10. Nor does it follow that she does not have such a right.

  11. For American Medical Association’s policy, see: www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8419.html.

  12. E.g. the work of Frank Snare [30] Peter Karlen [17] and Robert Goodin [10].

  13. Hence other rights relating to a person’s body—such as rights to healthcare—are not included.

  14. Again—this is highly controversial.

  15. Given of course that one is subject to proper medical care and a good follow-up.

  16. Some American studies have even shown that kidney donors live longer, a phenomenon which is likely to be a side-effect of their perhaps being more conscious about the importance of a healthy lifestyle.

  17. This is not to say that many people do not feel a profound need for hair, something which is shown by the great lengths some people are willing to go to in order to have their hair replaced for example. This need, however, actual or perceived, is not the type of biological need I have in mind in this article.

  18. Perhaps in the shape of a wig.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1999). Sweden sets ethical standards for use of genetic biobanks. Nature, 400, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Conference paper for the conference on altruism and economic theory held by the Russell Sage Foundation, 3–4 May 1972.

  3. Ashcroft, R. (2000). The ethics of reusing archived tissue for research. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology, 26, 408–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker, L. C. (1980). The moral basis of property rights. In J. Roland Pennock (Ed.), Property (pp. 187–220). New York: U.P.

  5. Björkman, B., & Hansson, S. O. (2005). Bodily rights & property rights. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(4), 20–214.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cherry, M. (2000). Is a market in human organs necessarily exploitative? Public Affairs Quarterly, 14(4), 337–360.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, F. S. (1957). Dialogue on private property. Rutgers Law Review, 9, 357–387.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Erin, C., & Harris J. (2003). An ethical market in human organs. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 137–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. For a discussion from a virtue ethics perspective, see Björkman B, (2005). Why we are not allowed to sell that which we are encouraged to donate, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. Volume 15, No 1, Winter 2006, 6, 60–70.

  10. Goodin, R. (1991). Property rights and preservationist duties. Inquiry, 33, 401–432.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Honoré, T. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Gueast (Ed.), Oxford Essays on Jurisprudence. UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hanson , M. (1999). Biotechnology and commodification within health. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(3), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S. O. (2005). Implant ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics JME, 31, 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harvey, J. (1990). Paying organ donors. Journal of Medical Ethics, 16, 117–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jansen, R. (1985). Sperm and ova as property. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11, 123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaiser, J. (2002). Population databases boom, from Iceland to the U.S.. Science, 298, 1158–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karlen, P. (1986). Worldmaking: Property rights in aesthetic creations. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 45, 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kass, L. (1991) Organs for sale? Propriety, property, and the price of progress, Presented in the Bradley Lecture Series, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C, June 11th, 1991.

  19. Locke, J. (1993). Two treatises of government. UK, Orion publishing group.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Macer, D. (1991). New Creations? Commentary. Hastings Center Report, 21, 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Macklin, R. (1994). Splitting embryos on the slippery slope: ethics and public policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1994, 4(3), 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moore vs. Regents of the University of California. Supreme Court of California, 51 cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (1990).

  23. Nelson, M. (1991). The morality of a free market in transplant organs. Public Affairs Quarterly, 5(1), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. UK, Blackwell publishers, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Radcliffe-Richards, J., Daar, A. S., Guttman, R., et al (1998). The case for allowing kidney sales. Lancet, 351, 1950–1952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested commodities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Reymond, M. A. et al. (2002). Ethical, legal and economical issues raised by the use of human tissue in postgenomic research. Digestive Diseases, 20, 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Savulescu, J. (2003). Is the sale of body parts wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 138–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Singer, P. (1973). Altruism and commerce: a defense of titmuss against arrow. Philosophy & Public Affairs SPR 73, (2), 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Snare, F. (1972). The concept of property. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9, 200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sowle Cahill, L. (2001).Genetics, commodification, and social justice in the globalization era. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11(3), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stegmyr, B., & Asplund, K. (2003). Genetisk forskning på blodprov som förvarats länge i medicinsk biobank. De flesta människor är positiva till att ge informerat samtycke, Läkartidningen, 100, 618–620.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stewart, R. (1984). Morality and the market in blood. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 1(2), 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The Gift Relationship—from human blood to social policy. George Allen and Unwin, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, The Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78B, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Barbro Björkman

Authors
  1. Barbro Björkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbro Björkman.

Additional information

In 2003, an EC-funded experimental course in newly arising ethical issues in biotechnology was hosted by prof dr. Louis-Marie Houdebine of the Laboratoire de Biologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire, INRA (Jouy-en-Josas, France). A second course took place in 2004, in Portofino, Italy, that built on the experiences of the first one. The product of this meeting was a network of scientists involved in ethical questions pertaining to novel biotechnologies. L. Witthoefft-Nielsen and L. Landeweerd, organizers of the second course, developed an initiative to strengthen this network of young researchers by encouraging members of the group to prepare papers on their respective subjects for submission to a peer reviewed journal. These initiatives were undertaken under the auspices of the BioTethics Consortium.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Björkman, B. Different types—Different rights. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 221–233 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9005-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9005-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation