Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:08:04.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Specimens and Genetic Privacy: Evolution of Legal Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Michelle Huckaby Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Human biological tissue samples are an invaluable resource for biomedical research designed to find causes of diseases and their treatments. Controversy has arisen, however, when research has been conducted with laboratory specimens either without the consent of the source of the specimen or when the research conducted with the specimen has expanded beyond the scope of the original consent agreement. Moreover, disputes have arisen regarding which party, the researcher or the source of the specimen, has control over who may use the specimens and for what purposes. The purposes of this article are: (1) to summarize the most important litigation regarding the use of laboratory specimens, and (2) to demonstrate how legal theory regarding control of laboratory specimens has evolved from arguments based upon property interests in biological samples to claims that the origins of laboratory specimens have privacy interests in their genetic information that should be protected.

Type
Supplement
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 41 , Issue S1 , Spring 2013 , pp. 65 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Supreme Court of California, 1990).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 2003).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fla. Statute Section 760.40 (2002).Google Scholar
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 2003).Google Scholar
Washington Univ. v. Catalona, 490 F.3d 667 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2007).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents, 204 P.3d 1063 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2008).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Beleno v. Texas Department of State Health Services, Case 5:2009cv00188.U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio, March 3, 2009.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Roser, M. “State Agrees to Destroy More Than 5 Million Stored Blood Samples from Newborns” The Statesman, December 23, 2009, available at <www.statesman.com/news/texas/state-agrees-to-destroy-more-than-5-million-141734.html> (last visited February 5, 2013).<www.statesman.com/news/texas/state-agrees-to-destroy-more-than-5-million-141734.html>+(last+visited+February+5,+2013).>Google Scholar
Higgins v. Texas Department of State Health Services, Civil Action No. SA-10-CV-990-XR (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2011). U.S.Google Scholar
Texas Health and Safety Code Section 33.018 (2011).Google Scholar
Bearder v. State of Minnesota, 806 N.W.2d 706 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2011).Google Scholar
Minn. Stat. Section 13.386 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearder v. State of Minnesota, 806 N.W.2d 706 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2011).Google Scholar