Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T16:53:29.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should Liability Play a Role in Social Control of Biobanks?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Larry I. Palmer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Repositories of tissues, cell lines, blood samples, and other biological specimens are crucial to genomics, proteomics, and other emerging forms of biomedical research. Creation of these repositories by individual researchers and their affiliated organizations, commercial entities, and even governments has been labeled “biobanking” in the bioethics literature. Biobanking as a metaphor for the collection, transfer, and use of these specimens suggests a framework for the legal response to conflicts that may arise - one embedded in principles of contract law and property ownership with an overlay of legislatively authorized regulation of the “industry.”

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Spring 2005 , pp. 70 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Eiseman, E. et al. , Case Studies of Existing Human Repositories: “Best Practices” for Biospecimen Resource for the Genomic and Proteomic Era (Santa Monica: Rand 2003) available at <http://www.rand.org/research_areas/science_technology/> (last visited January 24, 2005).Google Scholar
Howard University, a historically African-American institution, recently announced that it was starting to collect DNA samples from the predominantly African-American population of its affiliated hospital and clinics. Dalke, K., “African-American Biobank: Who Will Be in It?” Genome News Network, May 30, 2003 available at <http://www.genomenetwork.org/articles/05-03/biobank.shtml> (last visited January 24, 2005).+(last+visited+January+24,+2005).>Google Scholar
The United Kingdom, for example, is establishing a biobank and attempting to address the ethical issues raised by the collection. <http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ethics.htm> (last visited January 26, 2005).+(last+visited+January+26,+2005).>Google Scholar
264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003).Google Scholar
Id. at 1083.Google Scholar
Anderlik, M. R. and Rothstein, M. A., “Canavan Decision Favors Researchers over Families,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31, no. 3 (2003): 450–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, L. B., “Harnessing the Benefits of Biobanks,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33, no. 1 (2005): 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabresi, G. and Melamed, D., “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85 (1972):1089–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, R. P., “A New Dynamism in the Public Domain,” University of Chicago Law Review 71 (2004): 183–199.Google Scholar
See Calabresi, and Melamed, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
Whalley v. County of Tuscola, 58 F. 3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 273–74(g).Google Scholar
Radin, M. J., “Market-Inalienabilty,” Harvard Law Review 100 (1987): 1849–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Ala. Code § 7-2-314(4) (1975); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 139.125; Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch.91 para 183 § 3; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2108.11.Google Scholar
Palmer, L. I., Endings and Beginnings: Law, Medicine, and Society in Assisted Life and Death (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000): at 21–24.Google Scholar
Cox v. Jones, 470 N.W. 2d 23 (Iowa 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, L. I., “Disease Management and Liability in the Human Genome Era,” Villanova Law Review 47, no. 1 (2002): 1–36.Google Scholar
Palmer, L. I., “Genetic Health and Eugenics Precedents: A Voice of Caution,” Florida State University Law Review 30, no. 2 (2003): 237–264, at 249.Google Scholar
Schuck, P. H., “Rethinking Informed Consent,” Yale Law Journal 103, no. 4 (1994): 899–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P. 2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (1990).Google Scholar
Twerski, A. D. and Cohen, N. B., “The Second Revolution in Informed Consent: Comparing Physicians to Each Other,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 (1999): 1–49.Google Scholar
Jay Katz's work on informed consent demonstrates how difficult it is for law to achieve the goal of individual autonomy. Katz, J., The Silent World of Doctor and Patient (New York: The Free Press, 1984), at 48–84.Google Scholar
782 A. 2d 807 (Md. 2001).Google Scholar
The Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University, No. CV2004–0416 (Superior Court, Coconino County, Arizona, filed March 12, 2004) and Tilousi v. Arizona State University, No. CV2004–01115 (Superior Court, Coconino County, Arizona, filed February 26, 2004).Google Scholar
See Palmer, , supra note 17.Google Scholar
Berstein, A., “Muss es sein? Not Necessarily Says Torts Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 68 (2004): [in press]Google Scholar
Gitter, D. M., “Ownership of Human Tissue: A Proposal for Federal Recognition of Human Research Participants' Property Rights in Their Biological Material,” Washington and Lee Law Review 61, no 1 (2004): 257–345.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G., “An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and the Allocation of Body Parts” Stanford Law Review 55 (June 2003): 2113–2151.Google Scholar
51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990).Google Scholar
Id. at 125.Google Scholar
Id. at 127–29.Google Scholar
Id. at 127 n.4.Google Scholar
Id. at 134–146.Google Scholar
Id. at 131–33, 146–48.Google Scholar
Id. at 129 (citing Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972)) (stating that the scope of a physician's duty to communicate to the patient must be measured by the patient's need, and that need is whatever information is material to the decision).Google Scholar
See Gitter, , supra note 27 at 304–310.Google Scholar
Wilson v. Adkins, 941 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). 38. Arato v.Avedon, 5 Cal 4th 1172 (Cal. 1993).Google Scholar
Id. at 1179 n. 1, 1186–1187.Google Scholar
502 P. 2d 1 (Cal. 1972).Google Scholar
Hecht v. Kaplan, 645 N.Y. S. 2d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).Google Scholar
264 F. Supp 2d 1064 (S. D. Fla. 2003).Google Scholar
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §1.1.2 comment f.Google Scholar
The case was settled, but the terms are confidential.Google Scholar
See Gitter, , supra note 27, at 263 note 29.Google Scholar
See Twerski, and Cohen, , supra note 21.Google Scholar
782 A. 2d 807 (Md. 2001).Google Scholar
See Palmer, , supra note 18 at 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Complaint, The Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents (Supreme Court of State of Arizona and County of Coconio CV 2004–0146, March 12, 2004).Google Scholar
See Complaint, supra note 49, paragraph 19.Google Scholar
Dalton, R., “When Two Tribes go to War,” Nature 430, no. 29 (July 2004): 500–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gohdes, D. Kaufman, S. and Valway, S., “Diabetes in American Indians: An Overview,” Diabetes Care 16, no. 1 (January 1993): 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnichsen v. United States of America, 357 F.3d 962 (2004).Google Scholar
NY CLS Pub Health § 42190-c (2004).Google Scholar
Dalton, R., “Tribe Blasts ‘Exploitation’ of Blood Samples,” Nature 420, no. 14 (2002): 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See The Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University, supra note 24.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. M., “Unraveling the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis,” Archives of Internal Medicine 160, no. 5 (March 13, 2000): 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Harris, J. F. and Fletcher, M. A., “Six Decades Later, an Apology: Saying ‘I Am Sorry,’ President Calls Tuskegee Experiment 'Shameful,” Washington Post, May 17, 1997, at A1.Google Scholar
Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983).Google Scholar
Goodwin, M., “Altruism's Limits: Law, Capacity, and Organ Commodification,” Rutgers Law Review 56, no. 2 (2004): 305–407, at 314–329.Google Scholar
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (Health) Act of 2003, H.R. 5.Google Scholar
Federman, D. D. Hanna, K. E. and Rodriguez, L. L., eds., Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2002).Google Scholar