3 ms·
I was thinking the same thing. I kinda dislike that the called it "HIS external brain". They gathered cells and created a new organism using it a a base. It's n
by hobarrera 9y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I kinda dislike that the called it "HIS external brain". They gathered cells and created a new organism using it a a base. It's not "him" any more.
If it had been an embryo, and they let it grow 10 years (eg: into a child), would they still call it part of him?
My example scenario is quite absurd, I know, I'm merely attempting to show that where we draw the line [if at all] is extremely fuzzy.
More on point; can this organism feel pain? The amount of neurons seems to be in the same order of magnitude as flies.
- subroutine 9y agoYou guys might be interested in a court case known as Moore v. Regents of the University of California, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer... > A was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision filed on July 9, 1990, which dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. In 1976, John Moore was treated for hairy cell leukemia by physician David Golde, a cancer researcher at the UCLA Medical Center. Moore's cancer cells were later developed into a cell line that was commercialized by Golde and UCLA. The California Supreme Court ruled that a hospital patient's discarded blood and tissue samples are not his personal property and that individuals do not have rights to a share in the profits earned from commercial products or research derived from their cells. To my knowledge there is no case law for "non-discarded" cells.