The John Moore Legal Battle and Patient Tissue Property Rights

Key Insight

John Moore, diagnosed with hairy-cell leukemia in 1976, had his 22-pound spleen removed by Dr. David Golde at UCLA. Despite signing a consent form for tissue disposal, Moore became suspicious during years of follow-up visits, as Golde took numerous samples and offered to pay for travel. In 1983, a new consent form emerged, asking Moore to grant rights to any cell line or product developed from his tissues. Moore's lawyer subsequently discovered Golde had developed and marketed a cell line called 'Mo' from Moore's cells, filing a patent and securing agreements worth over $3.5 million from a biotech company, while the cell line's market value was estimated at $3 billion. Moore felt 'dehumanizing' to be referred to as 'Mo' in medical records.

In 1984, Moore sued Golde and UCLA, claiming deception, lack of consent, and property rights over his tissues. Initially, a judge dismissed the case, citing the lack of lawsuits over the HeLa cell line as a precedent that patients typically did not object to commercial use of their cells. However, in 1988, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Moore's favor, asserting that a patient 'must have the ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues' under the 1978 Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act. This decision was subsequently overturned on appeal.

Ultimately, the California Supreme Court ruled against Moore, stating that tissues removed from the body, with or without consent, are abandoned as 'waste' and become fair game for commercialization if 'transformed' into an invention through 'human ingenuity.' Moore was denied any profits from the cell line. However, the court did find Golde liable for lack of informed consent, as he had not disclosed his financial interests, and for breach of fiduciary duty, having violated patient trust. The court also highlighted the lack of regulation and patient protections in tissue research, urging legislators to address these issues, while cautioning against granting property rights to patients, as it might 'destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research' and 'hinder research.'