Justifying The Case Of John Moore V Regents Of The University Of California From A Gewirthian Perspective

The case John Moore v Regents of the University of California sets a precedent as to the relationship between human body parts and property rights. In this case John Moore was not successful in claim a right to his own body parts once they had been removed for research purposes and the question has to be raised whether this decision indicates that every part of the human body manipulated through modern biotechnology cannot be regarded as the property of those from whom the information originated. This article will discuss the issues of ownership and consent to uses made of genetic material from a Gewirthian perspective. Gewirth's thesis is that every agent, by the fact of engaging in action, is logically committed to the acceptance of certain evaluative and deontic judgements and ultimately of a supreme moral principle, the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC), which is addressed to every agent: Act in accord with the generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself. From the examination of the Moore case under the PGC, the decision made by the Supreme Court has seriously infringed Moore's human rights. It is submitted that Moore should be accorded his human right and be rewarded the royalties in accordance with the market value created. A new form of human rights, incorporated into intellectual property rights, can resolve issues relating to informed consent issues, not just in respect of community rights but also for individuals.