15 ms·

I was astounded to hear in the Radiolab podcast episode [1] that I do not own my own body or its parts. (If you listen to the podcast, the section on body/body

I was astounded to hear in the Radiolab podcast episode [1] that I do not own my own body or its parts. (If you listen to the podcast, the section on body/body-part ownership is just one of the several sections so you'll need to look for it.) The legal systems in the UK, USA and elsewhere avoid the question in part due to slavery's legacy. The submitted article [0] and podcast episode [1] outline that generally it appears: * people have rights to sell their own blood and skin tissue (but not other body parts), but never had property rights over those materials in the first place * companies that buy blood and skin, and who come to possess other body tissue, do under circumstances retain property rights over that tissue * there are many strange corner cases with germ line cells, embryos, transplanted organs, etc. One strange example from the podcast ... if you yourself withdraw your own blood into a vial and store the vial at home, a person breaking into your home that takes the vial of blood cannot be charged with theft of the blood itself since it never was yours -- they may be charged with breaking and entering, but not theft. On the other hand, if you sell your own blood to a company, and then manage to take it back without permission, you are a thief since the company has property rights over your blood. The implications in the podcast were astounding ... the article does a decent job discussing as well, but a transcript of that section of the podcast would have been a better post (can't find one). [0] http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/07/12/property-rights-in-the-human-body/ http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/07/12/property-rights-in-th... [1] https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/asking-friend https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/asking-friend

sharemywin 8y ago
Property rights would be come a real slippery slope though. The right to sell/rent your body. Sounds a lot like prostitution and slavery. How would you delineate which parts you own and which ones you can't sell?
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  The fact that I can not own parts of my body but an organization can, sort of undermines any claim that the current rules exist out of fears of slippery slopes to slavery.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    It's bizarre - if corporations are people, then surely the converse is true as well?
    - menzoic 8y ago
      Roses are flowers. Not all flowers are roses.
      - salawat 8y ago
        Um... I think you just kind of fell down a set of logic stairs there amigo. While your and GP posts were valid, this is a case of valid reasoning being applied to unsound premises in that a corporation is not granted these property rights through personhood, but via it's being a corporation. This is one of the things that makes me spit every time I think of conceptual train wreck that was Citizens United. Corporations were not meant to be people. They were logical constructs with just enough personhood to distinguish the economic institution from the people making it up in the eyes of the law, such that higher risk ventures could be more easily undertaken through pooling of resources, and distribution of risk. That means, it is a false assumption to think of a corporation as Person+. It's more a case of being a !Person. Frankly, the entire idea of property rights sort of breaks down in light of possession being 9/10's of the law w.r.t your own body. As a free agent, you can do what you want. Just... Understand the additional risk brought on by the legal system rapidly backpedaling away if you do something outside the few clearly established guidelines, and other people with no interest in testing potential legal waters that may destroy them will have very little in the way of external incentive to help you do it. One of the things most uncomfortable about a common law system is how precedent in unrelated areas can composite together to create a law where no intent to have such a thing was ever established.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    They have to make x medicine to save millions of lives. That requires "body parts" (cells) to test so they have to "own" them. Corporations do not own people in the slave sense, and Google's CEO can't walk to a random employee and say, "as a Google CEO, I want to chop off your leg since it's ours."
defen 8y ago
> * companies that buy blood and skin, and who come to possess other body tissue, do under circumstances retain property rights over that tissue Are there special rules about who can buy blood and skin? Otherwise why can't I just sell my blood to my friend and then immediately buy it back, thus acquiring property rights to it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
waffle_ss 8y ago
Not too long ago I heard a quip by Joe Rogan that you might find interesting. DMT is a Schedule I controlled substance in the USA, meaning it's illegal to be in possession of it in any amount. Yet it's a chemical that we all produce naturally in our own bodies (endogenous) in small amounts. So in a strict sense we're all guilty of a felony for being "holders" of this illegal substance.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
My take: If it was called property, you could legally sell your kidney, and they do not want that for a lot of reasons. However, the govt protects you and me by other laws. If someone ties you up, takes your kidney etc etc, they will be charged with worse crimes than stealing property (kidney). Once in a hospital, they have to destroy the tissue, fluids etc so you sign at the dotted line, or is implied, that after that it's theirs to destroy. You can't walk around with your amputated arm for example. Or use for research, if that's the case. Personally, I think that the patient should consent first and then cut into the profit or be paid a certain amount if his "body" is commercialized.
lostlogin 8y ago
> On the other hand, if you sell your own blood to a company, and then manage to take it back without permission, you are a thief since the company has property rights over your blood. I wonder what happens if you buy it back off the company, then it gets stolen?

sharemywin 8y ago

Property rights would be come a real slippery slope though. The right to sell/rent your body. Sounds a lot like prostitution and slavery. How would you delineate which parts you own and which ones you can't sell?

TomMckenny 8y ago
The fact that I can not own parts of my body but an organization can, sort of undermines any claim that the current rules exist out of fears of slippery slopes to slavery.
- deogeo 8y ago
  It's bizarre - if corporations are people, then surely the converse is true as well?
  - menzoic 8y ago
    Roses are flowers. Not all flowers are roses.
    - salawat 8y ago
      Um... I think you just kind of fell down a set of logic stairs there amigo. While your and GP posts were valid, this is a case of valid reasoning being applied to unsound premises in that a corporation is not granted these property rights through personhood, but via it's being a corporation. This is one of the things that makes me spit every time I think of conceptual train wreck that was Citizens United. Corporations were not meant to be people. They were logical constructs with just enough personhood to distinguish the economic institution from the people making it up in the eyes of the law, such that higher risk ventures could be more easily undertaken through pooling of resources, and distribution of risk. That means, it is a false assumption to think of a corporation as Person+. It's more a case of being a !Person. Frankly, the entire idea of property rights sort of breaks down in light of possession being 9/10's of the law w.r.t your own body. As a free agent, you can do what you want. Just... Understand the additional risk brought on by the legal system rapidly backpedaling away if you do something outside the few clearly established guidelines, and other people with no interest in testing potential legal waters that may destroy them will have very little in the way of external incentive to help you do it. One of the things most uncomfortable about a common law system is how precedent in unrelated areas can composite together to create a law where no intent to have such a thing was ever established.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  They have to make x medicine to save millions of lives. That requires "body parts" (cells) to test so they have to "own" them. Corporations do not own people in the slave sense, and Google's CEO can't walk to a random employee and say, "as a Google CEO, I want to chop off your leg since it's ours."

defen 8y ago

> * companies that buy blood and skin, and who come to possess other body tissue, do under circumstances retain property rights over that tissue Are there special rules about who can buy blood and skin? Otherwise why can't I just sell my blood to my friend and then immediately buy it back, thus acquiring property rights to it?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

waffle_ss 8y ago

Not too long ago I heard a quip by Joe Rogan that you might find interesting. DMT is a Schedule I controlled substance in the USA, meaning it's illegal to be in possession of it in any amount. Yet it's a chemical that we all produce naturally in our own bodies (endogenous) in small amounts. So in a strict sense we're all guilty of a felony for being "holders" of this illegal substance.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

My take: If it was called property, you could legally sell your kidney, and they do not want that for a lot of reasons. However, the govt protects you and me by other laws. If someone ties you up, takes your kidney etc etc, they will be charged with worse crimes than stealing property (kidney). Once in a hospital, they have to destroy the tissue, fluids etc so you sign at the dotted line, or is implied, that after that it's theirs to destroy. You can't walk around with your amputated arm for example. Or use for research, if that's the case. Personally, I think that the patient should consent first and then cut into the profit or be paid a certain amount if his "body" is commercialized.

lostlogin 8y ago

> On the other hand, if you sell your own blood to a company, and then manage to take it back without permission, you are a thief since the company has property rights over your blood. I wonder what happens if you buy it back off the company, then it gets stolen?