An account of many aspects of medical practice and the law. Dealing with such controversial areas as genetic engineering, fetal rights, transplantation, euthanasia, artificial reproduction, and medical examination, Meyers gives a breakdown of current debates and legal decisions in England, Scotland and the US. First published in 1970. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

Do you own your body? Advances in science and the development of genetic databases have added an aura of modern controversy to this long-standing and, as yet, unresolved problem. In particular, English law governing separated human tissue (including organs, DNA and cell-lines) is unsatisfactory. Despite the enactment of the Human Tissue Act 2004 UK, it remains uncertain what property rights living persons can claim over tissue separated from their bodies. The development of clear legal principles is necessary to protect the rights of individuals while also enabling the efficient use of such ma.

Do you own your body? Advances in science and the development of genetic databases have added an aura of modern controversy to this long-standing and, as yet, unresolved problem. In particular, English law governing separated human tissue (including organs, DNA and cell-lines) is unsatisfactory. Despite the enactment of the Human Tissue Act 2004 UK, it remains uncertain what property rights living persons can claim over tissue separated from their bodies. The development of clear legal principles is necessary to protect the rights of individuals while also enabling the efficient use of such materials in medical research. Part I of Law and the Human Body traces the evolution of English, Australian, United States and Canadian law in relation to human tissue separated from living persons and dead bodies. This includes a comprehensive examination of the Human Tissue Act 2004 UK as well as prominent judicial decisions, including Re Organ Retention Group Litigation [2005] QB 506, Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network Inc 8 NY 3d 43 (NY CA 2006) and Washington University v Catalona 490 F 3d 667 (8th Cir 2007). Analysis demonstrates that, although property rights and non-proprietary interests in separated human tissue are recognised in limited circumstances, no principled basis has been accepted either at common law or by statute for the recognition of these rights and interests. Part II of this book develops and defends a principled basis in English law for the creation and legal recognition of property rights and non-proprietary interests in separated human tissue. Significantly, the analysis and principles presented in Law and the Human Body have application across common law and civil law jurisdictions worldwide.

In this admirably objective and lucid exposition, the author examines from a medico-legal standpoint the comparative position in various countries, particularly in the UK and the USA, of currently controversial medical procedures: voluntary sterilisation, compulsory sterilisation and castration, trans-sexualism, experimentation, transplantation, and euthanasia - few of which, if any, enjoy a settled or clearly defined place in the eyes of the law. He considers the problems from two perspectives: first, that of the individual in society and how far he himself may determine the extent of physical intrusion on his body; secondly, that of the state or society and how far it may impose or limit medical intrusion on the human body. Thus, Mr. Meyers provides a valuable account, not only of current medical attitudes, but also of relevant case and statute law as it stands at present.It is inherent in the nature of this book that it should arouse controversy and argument. There are many important questions to be debated: Has the state the right to enforce its conception of morality without showing that the behaviour it proscribes has a harmful effect on other members of society? To what extent does consent by the individual concerned insulate a surgeon from criminal liability? In connection with compulsory sterilisation, who is to judge those unfit to procreate? What is a proper definition of medical experimentation? What constitutes death? If a man has a right to live has he not an equal right to die?These are a few of the issues raised. The author has not hesitated to express his own opinions but has clearly relegated them to the summary at the end of each chapter, thereby leaving the objectivity of his main text unimpaired.David W. Meyers is a practicing lawyer in California, with American and British legal qualifications at the firm of Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty. He has taught at the University of Edinburgh Law School and the University of Tasmania Law School as well as