3 ms·

"Any tissue sample that is given in a hospital or any medical facility, once it's given, is no longer your property," Lorey explained. "You can agree with that

"Any tissue sample that is given in a hospital or any medical facility, once it's given, is no longer your property," Lorey explained. "You can agree with that or disagree with that, but it happens to be the law." If true this is incredibly depressing. I don't know very much about patient privacy laws but have some follow up questions for those more knowledgeable: 1) I assume this quote refers to California state law and not Federal law? 2) Is there a state that has a track record of taking privacy more seriously? Despite caring deeply about my privacy I've let it steadily erode with the rise of "customers are the product" type services. Between this and Cambridge Analytica it seems that the US is surprisingly bad at protecting citizens' privacy. I'd like to know if it's possible to live in the US without essentially waiving my right to keep personal information personal.

amarshall 8y ago
A patient’s lack of ownership over their discarded tissue is (at least partially) a result of the decision in Moore v. Regents of the University of California[1] which was, yes, a California Supreme Court case. Though it seems courts in other jurisdictions sometimes agree with its decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer...
- tehgdogg 8y ago
  Thanks I appreciate the information.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  Wow, reading through that case it seemed like it should have been a slam dunk for Moore. It appears that we literally have more rights over our personal information than we do over our DNA.
bsenftner 8y ago
The USA only protects one type of citizen: the corporate citizen. Human citizens are like a 3rd world country here. Those human citizens who want better treatment own or control corporations, and gain their entitlement through them. This is the United States of America.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  What rights does a "corporate citizen" have that an actual citizen doesn't? I think what you really mean is that people or organizations with money seem to have more rights. Obviously because they have the resources to fight for those rights.
lmkg 8y ago
This is why property isn't a great metaphor for certain situations[1]. An important aspect that people (incorrectly) attribute to property is exclusivity: When I own something, it's mine, and that means it's not anyone else's. A transfer of ownership is a severing of rights. The fact is, for some things (like tissue samples with DNA), it's important to recognize that non-owners can have a stake in is done with something. The originator of a tissue sample cannot entirely severe their connection with that tissue, and that means that the new owner shouldn't be able to claim unrestricted ownership. The legality should recognize ways in which the non-owner can be affected by the owner's interactions with the sample. (Aside: GDPR works by essentially doing the same thing with data. The "Rights of the Data Subject" stipulate that a non-owner of the data is still a stakeholder in that data.) [1] Although, ironically, that actually makes property law well-suited to addressing the situation. In Common Law, the idea of 'ownership' is understood as 'a bundle of rights,' which can be un-bundled. A framework for addressing the situation is to enumerate separable rights for tissue samples, and stipulate different rules for delegating those rights.

amarshall 8y ago

A patient’s lack of ownership over their discarded tissue is (at least partially) a result of the decision in Moore v. Regents of the University of California[1] which was, yes, a California Supreme Court case. Though it seems courts in other jurisdictions sometimes agree with its decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer...

tehgdogg 8y ago
Thanks I appreciate the information.
ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
Wow, reading through that case it seemed like it should have been a slam dunk for Moore. It appears that we literally have more rights over our personal information than we do over our DNA.

bsenftner 8y ago

The USA only protects one type of citizen: the corporate citizen. Human citizens are like a 3rd world country here. Those human citizens who want better treatment own or control corporations, and gain their entitlement through them. This is the United States of America.

jjeaff 8y ago
What rights does a "corporate citizen" have that an actual citizen doesn't? I think what you really mean is that people or organizations with money seem to have more rights. Obviously because they have the resources to fight for those rights.

lmkg 8y ago

This is why property isn't a great metaphor for certain situations[1]. An important aspect that people (incorrectly) attribute to property is exclusivity: When I own something, it's mine, and that means it's not anyone else's. A transfer of ownership is a severing of rights. The fact is, for some things (like tissue samples with DNA), it's important to recognize that non-owners can have a stake in is done with something. The originator of a tissue sample cannot entirely severe their connection with that tissue, and that means that the new owner shouldn't be able to claim unrestricted ownership. The legality should recognize ways in which the non-owner can be affected by the owner's interactions with the sample. (Aside: GDPR works by essentially doing the same thing with data. The "Rights of the Data Subject" stipulate that a non-owner of the data is still a stakeholder in that data.) [1] Although, ironically, that actually makes property law well-suited to addressing the situation. In Common Law, the idea of 'ownership' is understood as 'a bundle of rights,' which can be un-bundled. A framework for addressing the situation is to enumerate separable rights for tissue samples, and stipulate different rules for delegating those rights.