You are talking about having a patent on the method to create the organ, not the organ itself. It seems to me that if Monsanto can have a patent on a "unique"

You are talking about having a patent on the method to create the organ, not the organ itself. It seems to me that if Monsanto can have a patent on a "unique" seed that at the same time is indistinguishable from a natural one then it can be argued their patent covers the natural one as well. Especially if nature takes its usual course where the natural seed slowly takes on the characteristics of the patented seed due to cross pollination. Which cannot be easily controlled in an open field unless Monsanto wants to crack down on all the insects involved in pollination. Oh yes, make the wind illegal as well. Based on articles I've read about Monsanto's behavior in this industry it seems they think they do indeed own the rights to soybean seeds in the US. If the patent covered the process of creating said seed then I can understand. But I don't agree that one can claim to be unique and generic at the same time. Plus if the resulting seed is indistinguishable from a natural one and the patent was on the seed itself then it would seem that the natural seed is the prior art to counter the patent in the first place. In your example, a proper comparison would be if the new organ is resistive to aging or whatever other common human failing that would cause one to replace the organ. Therefore, it is not indistinguishable from the natural one. It would indeed have a distinguishable characteristic that makes it different than a natural one. Then you can have the patent on the organ. But don't tell me you own the liver of the child of the parent who received your organ because somehow the characteristics of your special organ was passed down to said child.