Furthering of Tissue Rights

Moore vs. California

In 1976, a man named John Moore found in several trips to the doctor that he had Hairy-cell leukemia. Upon his first visit he meet with the treating physician, Dr. Golde. After a few tests, Golde found a large amount immune system proteins in Moore's blood. A suggestion for Spleen removal surgery was given consent for by Moore, and found that his spleen was enlarged 22x. 

After the removal of Moor's spleen, Golde took tissue samples of the spleen and continued to observe their actions during his research. However Golde had not informed Moore of his intentions and never was given consent to take them. After Moore's surgery, he was direct to come back and have followup treatments which consisted of more substance removal up until 1983. Eventually with Shirley Quan, Dr. Golde developed the mo cell line, and received a patent in 1984. These Mo Cells could produce lymphokine proteins at a lower cost than the synthetic manufactured lymphokine proteins. After a while Moore became very suspicious of Golde's research an questioned the purpose of the multiple visits he made. Later on he even questioned whether Golde had been making money off of him. When asked to sign a form stating Moore and Moore's heir's would loose rights over his tissue, he got advice from his lawyer and would then take legal action.

However, through many tries, Moore's was unsuccessful of winning in the multiple trials that occurred. The court ruled that since the tissue was not apart of Moore anymore, thats he has no rights over the samples or right to compensation. Since Golde patented intellectual property, he has the right to what he learned and observed during his research since he did initially receive consent from Moore. From there it was considered ethnically correct to patent the Mo Cell solely based on the research and not the ownership of the property. Moore would be compensated for his additional trips since he was never informed of Golde's endeavors; this infringed on Moore's rights giving him right to compensation.