Post by skytroll on Aug 27, 2007 12:28:28 GMT -5
Something we should be aware of as Kaiser moves in to help us.
........
snippet.......
"You may know about the recent Catalona case, in which an eminent prostate cancer physician assembled a large collection of tissues samples from his patients so he could work on the disease. When the doctor went to another university, he tried to take his tisssues wth him. Washington University refused, saying they owned the tissues; the case was litigated, and the judge upheld the university, in part because of such trivial facts as some of the releases were printed on Washington University stationery. Patients are understandably outraged, they thought they were giving their tissues to the beloved doctor, not the shadowy university; they thought they were giving tissues specifically to research a disease, not for any use, which the University now claims the right to do.
Where does that leave us? Under present law, if somebody takes my picture, I have rights forever in the use of that picture. Thirty years later, somebody publishes it or puts it in an ad, I still have rights. But if somebody takes my tissue, part of my body, I have no rights. I have more rights over my image than I have over the physical tissues of my body. That’s just plain absurd.
Universities are being very foolish. Patients will figure this one out. Let me give you a futuristic scenario. I have to go to the hospital for a blood test. Right now, I pay for the test. But I will soon go to priceline.com to get a bid for which hospital will pay me the most for the privilege of doing my test, and keeping my blood. So if you think that current rulings about tissues protect medical research, think again. If my tissues are valuable but you give me no rights once they leave my body, then my whole focus will be to control the point of departure. Fleets of lawyers will converge on this point. What happens next will be brutal, and expensive.
So: how can we really assist medical research? By giving patients appropriate control. I donate my tissues for a purpose, and that purpose only. You want to use them for something else, you need my permission again. You can't get my permission, you can't use the tissues. Simple. Two reasons for this: first, it gives me that emotional sense so important to me because it makes explicit the tie to the tissue even if it has left my body. Second, it acknowledges there may be significant legal and religious reasons why I do not want the tissue used for another purpose. Third, because that’s already the federal guidelines. The NIH seems to be able to do research, therefore other institutions can, too, thus proving their whines to be a legal fiction. But as I said, IP workers take all they can get. "........
Some thoughtful considerations:
www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-legislativestaffers.html
Skytroll
........
snippet.......
"You may know about the recent Catalona case, in which an eminent prostate cancer physician assembled a large collection of tissues samples from his patients so he could work on the disease. When the doctor went to another university, he tried to take his tisssues wth him. Washington University refused, saying they owned the tissues; the case was litigated, and the judge upheld the university, in part because of such trivial facts as some of the releases were printed on Washington University stationery. Patients are understandably outraged, they thought they were giving their tissues to the beloved doctor, not the shadowy university; they thought they were giving tissues specifically to research a disease, not for any use, which the University now claims the right to do.
Where does that leave us? Under present law, if somebody takes my picture, I have rights forever in the use of that picture. Thirty years later, somebody publishes it or puts it in an ad, I still have rights. But if somebody takes my tissue, part of my body, I have no rights. I have more rights over my image than I have over the physical tissues of my body. That’s just plain absurd.
Universities are being very foolish. Patients will figure this one out. Let me give you a futuristic scenario. I have to go to the hospital for a blood test. Right now, I pay for the test. But I will soon go to priceline.com to get a bid for which hospital will pay me the most for the privilege of doing my test, and keeping my blood. So if you think that current rulings about tissues protect medical research, think again. If my tissues are valuable but you give me no rights once they leave my body, then my whole focus will be to control the point of departure. Fleets of lawyers will converge on this point. What happens next will be brutal, and expensive.
So: how can we really assist medical research? By giving patients appropriate control. I donate my tissues for a purpose, and that purpose only. You want to use them for something else, you need my permission again. You can't get my permission, you can't use the tissues. Simple. Two reasons for this: first, it gives me that emotional sense so important to me because it makes explicit the tie to the tissue even if it has left my body. Second, it acknowledges there may be significant legal and religious reasons why I do not want the tissue used for another purpose. Third, because that’s already the federal guidelines. The NIH seems to be able to do research, therefore other institutions can, too, thus proving their whines to be a legal fiction. But as I said, IP workers take all they can get. "........
Some thoughtful considerations:
www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-legislativestaffers.html
Skytroll