Who Owns Our Tissues?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Steve Jordan - 12 Oct 2006 00:41 GMT

From time to time I have ranted about who owns our biopsy specimens,
for the purpose of having possession and for ordering that they be sent
to a specialist path lab.

Well well, it appears that my simplistic view that my prostate specimens
are MINE has some contrary viewpoints. Naturally, once the lawyers take
an interest. Then, nothing is simple and straightforward.

Here is a link to a NEJM article (written by a lawyer) on ownership of
my -- and your -- tissue specimens:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/15/1517?query=TOC

It is especially interesting because it mentions a case involving the
famous William Catalona, MD. While at Washington University in St.
Louis, Dr. Catalona had received permission from >3500 PCa patients to
use their tissue specimens in his researches. When he left the
university, he asked those patients to tell the school to send the
specimens to him. The school refused to comply. In the litigation that
followed, Dr. Catalona lost. And IMO so did the rest of us who might
have benefited from his scholarship.

How's this for the reasoning power of the legal mind: The deep deep
wisdom of the judges held that patients could require that the specimens
could be destroyed, but *not* that they be sent to Dr. Catalona or to
another school.

God help us all....

Regards,

Steve J

"A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean
what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had
written it."
--Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 1896-1985
U. S. Senator, North Carolina, 1954-1974

Reply to this Message

Buttercup's Dad - 12 Oct 2006 12:09 GMT

My prostate is in a jar somewhere in Massachusetts. They had me sign
an agreement that allowed them to use the tissues in research. The
university had a joint venture with some for profit outfit up there to
do research and I signed away any rights that I may have had in future
profits that may derive from techniques or products that would result
from that research.

In this day in age I would assume that one of the dozens of signatures
that are required before surgery would cover the disposition and
ownership of tissues removed during the procedure. Especially after
experience with cases like you mention.

> From time to time I have ranted about who owns our biopsy specimens,
> for the purpose of having possession and for ordering that they be sent
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> --Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 1896-1985
> U. S. Senator, North Carolina, 1954-1974

Reply to this Message

Alan Meyer - 13 Oct 2006 18:04 GMT

...

> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/15/1517?query=TOC
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to him. The school refused to comply. In the litigation that followed, Dr. Catalona
> lost. And IMO so did the rest of us who might have benefited from his scholarship.

...

I skimmed that article but couldn't find any mention of why
Washington University refused to release the specimens. I can
speculate that reasons might include:

1. Other WU professors were in the middle of research involving
the specimens and it would have damaged their research if they
sent the specimens to Dr. Catalona.

If this were the case, I'd think something could be worked out
amicably between all the professors involved. One group could
have completed their research and sent the specimens on, or
one group might have gotten an agreement that the other group
would provide requested data about the specimens.

2. WU believed it violated patients privacy rights.

Given that they got requests from patients to forward the
specimens, I don't see how that can be it.

3. The cost of forwarding the specimens was high?

That's hard to believe too. I presume Dr. Catalona's lab
would have paid the cost and, in any case, I bet the cost was
far lower than the cost of defending a lawsuit.

4. WU has a bureacratic turf issue.

WU may have feared that other professors would leave and take
their stuff with them too. They wanted to send a message to
the entire staff that, if you quit for a better job, prepare
to lose all your research materials and data.

Why do I suspect this was the cause?

I also somehow suspect that if we read the brief prepared by
WU's lawyer, we'd never find any mention of this as a reason
for withholding the data. No doubt number 2 would be the
prominent issue.

Am I too cynical?

Alan

Reply to this Message