Law: The heart of the matter
The law is in a muddle over who owns our bodies after death.
Thursday 04 March 1999
For the parents of the babies who died after cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, the discovery that the hospital had kept the children's hearts came as a devastating and grisly shock. It will be one of the many issues under investigation when the public inquiry starts on 16 March.
More generally, it is a matter of growing concern that, as research techniques become increasingly sophisticated - with the possibility that parts of your body could become the raw material for very profitable treatments - legislation has fallen behind the times. Four years ago, the Nuffield Council for Bioethics called for the law to be clarified as "its uncertainty may impede legitimate treatment".
But there are no specific legal provisions in statute on the ownership of bodies or body parts, except for an ancient common law principle that no one can claim legal ownership of a body. Current legislation includes the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989, which regulates the removal of organs for transplant. John Harris, professor of bioethics at Manchester University, suggested that bodies should become public property on death so that consent to organ donation would be automatic, unless someone chose to opt out.
The Human Tissue Act 1961 regulates the removal of body parts "for therapeutic purposes or for the purposes of medical education or research" and the Anatomy Act 1984 regulates the conduct of anatomical examinations. Both refer to "the person lawfully in possession of the a body" as the person who can give consent to the removal of body parts, post mortems and anatomical examinations. But neither defines who that person can be.
Relatives of the deceased have some rights of possession of the body, but only to ensure proper burial. It is implicit in the Human Tissue Act that where someone dies in hospital, the hospital is "lawfully in possession" of the body. The hospital can then authorise the removal and use of body parts, if it believes the deceased or any surviving relative would not object.
In the case of the babies who died at Bristol Royal Infirmary, their families have little chance of redress because proving that a hospital has acted unreasonably is too difficult to be viable. Laurence Vick, solicitor for some of the families, aims to show a link between their mental trauma and the hospital's original negligence. But the parents' primary concern is to ensure the practice of retaining body parts is better regulated.
The line of authority "twists and turns", says solicitor Mark Stephens, who acted for Anthony Noel-Kelly, the sculptor jailed last year for stealing human body parts. The prosecution argued that the common law stating that no one could own a body derived from a misunderstanding. A 1614 case of alleged burial-shroud theft ruled that a corpse could not own property, but was wrongly taken to mean that a corpse itself could not be owned. And two years ago, the case of Deborah Dobson, who died from brain tumours, also tested the question of ownership. Her grandparents sued Newcastle Health Authority for destroying a part of her brain which meant that they could not establish whether the tumours had been malignant. Judges held that there was no property in a corpse and no duty on a hospital to preserve body parts indefinitely. Richard Hone QC, counsel for the family, said: "The law is in a fearful muddle about this." So muddled, says medical negligence specialist Dan Brennan QC, that people are less protected in terms of medical research than animals.
He is concerned that very few research ethics committees have lay members, while the medical profession is increasingly being subjected to commercial pressures. His own view is that there must be tighter controls: "Patients must be put at the forefront, whether they are alive or dead."
By performing as African Americans or Indians, white people get to play act a kind of 'imaginary liberation', writes Michael Mark Cohen
New essay by JK Rowling went live on Pottermore site this morning
New UK station Russia Today gives a very bizarre view of Britain
Top Gear presenter is no stranger to foot-in-mouth controversy
- 1 Canadian actor punched in face after 'Islamophobia' experiment goes wrong in wake of Ottawa shooting
- 2 Topshop at centre of row over body image as 'shocking' skinny mannequin photo goes viral
- 3 Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson criticised for beer tweet
- 4 The bubble bursts for Sodastream
- 5 If you think Russell Brand’s new book is confused, you should read what his critics have to say about it
'Nasa Confirms Six Days of Darkness in December': No, they don't - it's a hoax
Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson criticised for beer tweet
The bubble bursts for Sodastream
Russian politician says Apple CEO Tim Cook should be 'banned' from country after coming out as gay
'Santa Claus' dead: John Moore starred in Coca Cola and Morrisons adverts
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Huge surge in Ukip support after EU funding row, according to new poll
Ukip ‘exploiting grooming scandal’ to secure party’s first police chief
Nigel Farage: 'There’s nothing wrong with white people blacking up'
Maureen Lipman says 'she can't vote Labour while Ed Miliband is leader'
Muslims, immigration and teenage pregnancy: British people are ignorant about almost everything
£40000 - £65000 per annum + bonus + benefits + OT: Ampersand Consulting LLP: M...
£22800 - £33600 per annum: Randstad Education Manchester Secondary: The JobAt ...
£22800 - £33600 per annum: Randstad Education Manchester Secondary: Calling al...
£100 - £125 per day: Randstad Education Chelmsford: EYFS Teachers - East Essex...