Search results
Oct 13, 2001 · Oct. 13, 2001 12 AM PT. TIMES STAFF WRITER. John L. Moore, a leukemia patient who lost a historic property rights battle in which he claimed he deserved to share in the profits from an...
Physician and cancer researcher David Golde took samples of Moore's blood, bone marrow, and other bodily fluids to confirm the diagnosis and recommended a splenectomy because of the potentially fatal amount of swelling in Moore's spleen. Moore signed a written consent form, authorizing the procedure.
People also ask
Why did John Moore have a spleen removed?
Did Golde and Quan inform Moore about his spleen removal?
What did Moore v Regents of the University of California do?
Does Moore's spleen fill with defective lymphocytes in hairy-cell leukemia?
Nov 18, 2020 · Published: 2020-11-18. On 9 July 1990, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three decision that individuals do not have rights to a share in profits earned from research performed on their bodily materials.
John Moore’s spleen. Mr. John Moore suffered from hairy-cell leukemia. In 1976, Dr. David Golde of the University of California Medical Center, recommended that his spleen be removed in order to slow the progress of the disease. Mr. Moore signed a written consent form authorizing a splenectomy, and surgeons removed his spleen. Dr.
[18] The plaintiff is John Moore (Moore), who underwent treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at the Medical Center of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA Medical Center).
For example, in the case at bar no trier of fact is likely to believe that if defendants had disclosed their plans for using Moore's cells, no reasonably prudent person in Moore's position -- i.e., a leukemia patient suffering from a grossly enlarged spleen -- would have consented to the routine operation that saved or at least prolonged his life.
In the case of John Moore's spleen, the most dramatic recasting of the dilemma summoned the threat of enslavement. On both sides of the case, legal experts and cultural observers cautioned that ownership of a human body was the first step on the slippery slope to "bioslavery." The powerful image of a human being defined as chattel and legally owned
