SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS (216-119-144-41.ipset24.wt.net)
Subject: CJD TISSUE DONATIONS FOR RESEARCH WITH REIMBURSEMENT CLAUSE $
Date: August 27, 2004 at 8:25 am PST

I must say i am even more deeply disturbed by all this now than
ever before. have just read a form that is very disturbing to me.
have promised my silence for now, but why would anyone want to
donate there loved ones tissues under circumstances such as this. the
just of this is REIMBURSEMENT. IT seems that if you donate
your loved ones tissues for research to the CDC/NIH or CWRU
and or whomever, and with these tissues they find a blood diagnostic
tool to diagnose pre-clinical TSEs, or if the Gov. gets a patent or a
license to develop new products to help improve public health, under
current laws, donors of blood, tissue and other biological samples
do not keep any property rights to the samples. SO, if with these
tissues that you donated from your loved one, if a diagnostic tools is
developed, it would then be patented and all the cash windfall
(we are speaking of potentially millions and millions of dollars for
CJD) would go only to the ones the tissues were donated to. I find this
deeply
disturbing, not in that i would want any cash windfall from my
mothers tissues, but i would want to know exactly where they go
and whom is benefiting. I think that all money (if any) would/should
go to the further research of all human TSEs. I would want all tissue
documented and exactly how much there is. Some of these same
folks that would benefit from such windfall, are the very ones that
sat on the sidelines for years and years saying it is not here and blood
would not transmit the agent, until it did. NOW, they want to jump
on the gold and have you sign all rights away. I would not sign such
a document with such a REIMBURSEMENT clause in it.

i did a little digging and found this Case Western Reserve Document;

[PPT] Slide 1

File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint 97 - View as HTML

... Greenberg Litigation. ... Patent? Copyright? Data? ... Must be
considered separately. Much
genetic research requires health and other information about tissue
donors. ...
ora.ra.cwru.edu/showcase2004/ presentations/Panel%202%20BIOETHICS.PPT

http://ora.ra.cwru.edu/showcase2004/presentations/Panel%25202%2520BIOETHICS.PPT&e=912

HTML URL;

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:myG5CLh3vLcJ:ora.ra.cwru.edu/showcase2004/presentations/Panel%25202%2520BIOETHICS.PPT+tissue+donor+litigation+patent+florida&hl=en&start=3

U.S. Court in Florida Says Informed Consent Is Not Needed for Use of
Donated Tissue in Medical Research
Families of children afflicted with a rare genetic disease donated blood
and tissue
samples to a physician researcher so that tests could be developed to
determine
carriers of the disease and for prenatal testing. Six years later, the
research
physician, now at another medical center, was successful in isolating
the gene,
and filed a patent application for the genetic sequence, which was
granted. The
plaintiff families filed suit for, inter alia, lack of informed consent.
Although the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
acknowledged
that, in certain circumstances, a medical researcher has a duty to obtain
informed consent, because the plaintiffs were donors rather than test
subjects,
the Court declined to extend the informed consent duty for medical
research to
disclosure of possible financial interest.
Greenberg v. Miami Childrens Hosp. Research Inst. Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d
1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
The duty to obtain informed consent does not extend to donors of genetic
materials for research purposes, even when the researcher may develop an
undisclosed financial interest in the research at some point in the future.

http://www.healthlawyers.org/hlw/docs/yir2004_hcll.pdf

course all this pertains to donated tissue, i wonder what about
all those tissues that were stolen from all those children over the
years in hospitals?

Hundreds of children like Caroline had body parts sold to drug companies


18/08/2004 Caroline Keating

By Caroline ODoherty
SHOCKING new allegations have been made that the sale of human tissue to
drugs manufacturers was widespread, involving many hospitals and medical
companies and multiple body parts.
Parents for Justice claims it has information that the practice
continued from the 1960s to as recently as 2000 and that it was carried
on for profit, fuelling a multi-million euro international
pharmaceuticals industry.

Their sources say the trade, previously thought to be confined to
pituitary glands, extended to the supply of thyroid, adrenal and
pancreatic glands, all removed from deceased patients without their
families consent.

snip...

CAROLINE KEATING died unexpectedly just days short of her second
birthday from a post-operative infection at Dublins Our Ladys Hospital
for Sick Children in 1982.

Her parents Tim and Margaret Keating, from Ballincollig, Co Cork,
received a letter last week saying Carolines pituitary gland was
removed and passed on to Pharmacia Ireland for use in the manufacture of
growth hormones. It seems every organ they looked at, they kept. Were
very hurt. As far as were concerned, they plundered her body, said Tim.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/iestory.asp?j=324961549330&p=3z496y5499zx&n=324961550019

Cadaver corneal transplants -- without family permission...TEXAS

http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/dec99_news.html#bbb

THE LEGALITY OF STEALING ORGAN/TISSUE...

TEXAS STATUTES

Sec. 693.012. Removal of Corneal Tissue Permitted Under Certain
Circumstances.

On a request from an authorized official of an eye bank for corneal
tissue, a justice of the peace or medical examiner may permit the
removal of corneal tissue if:

(1) the decedent from whom the tissue is to be removed died under
circumstances requiring an inquest by the justice of the peace or
medical examiner;

(2) no objection by a person listed in Section 693.013 is known by the
justice of the peace or medical examiner; and

(3) the removal of the corneal tissue will not interfere with the
subsequent course of an investigation or autopsy or alter the decedent's
postmortem facial appearance.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

Note: This information includes legislation enacted through the 75th
Congress. The 76th session of the Texas Legislature has concluded. The
State of Texas has not yet made the new codes available to the public.
Until they do, search the bill text for any changes or amendments.

Search 1999 Legislation for: 693.012
--------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS STATUTES
Sec. 693.003. Consent Required in Certain Circumstances.

(a) A medical examiner or a person acting on the authority of a medical
examiner may not remove a visceral organ unless the medical examiner
or person obtains the consent of a person listed in Section 693.004.

(b) If a person listed in Section 693.004 is known and available within
four hours after death is pronounced, a medical examiner or a person
acting on the authority of a medical examiner may not remove a
nonvisceral organ or tissue unless the medical examiner or person
obtains that person's consent.

(c) If a person listed in Section 693.004 cannot be identified and
contacted within four hours after death is pronounced and the medical
examiner determines that no reasonable likelihood exists that a person
can be identified and contacted during the four-hour period, the medical
examiner may permit the removal of a nonvisceral organ or tissue.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

Note: This information includes legislation enacted through the 75th
Congress. The 76th session of the Texas Legislature has concluded. The
State of Texas has not yet made the new codes available to the public.
Until they do, search the bill text for any changes or amendments.

Search 1999 Legislation for: 693.003
--------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE; the bottom would only pertain to those who know of the
law. if you don't know about it, you cannot dispute, so in four hours,
they can legally remove body organs, as long as they don't disfigure.
and who is to know the difference? makes me wonder of some of my dead
relatives, and if they were burried with their eye's and or any of their
organs. This is very disturbing, if not for moral reasons, but for the
risk of dangerous pathogens (human TSE's, etc.) to be transmitted. only
time will tell, but i am very disturbed.
these laws are not morally correct. They should be re-written as to they
cannot so easily take your organs, with no one knowing. The Family or
Victim, must consent. There should be some kind of research
on donor/family medical history...TSS
--------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 693.013. Persons Who May Object to Removal.

The following persons may object to the removal of corneal tissue:

(1) the decedent's spouse;

(2) the decedent's adult children, if there is no spouse;

(3) the decedent's parents, if there is no spouse or adult child; or

(4) the decedent's brothers or sisters, if there is no spouse, adult
child, or parent.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

Note: This information includes legislation enacted through the 75th
Congress. The 76th session of the Texas Legislature has concluded. The
State of Texas has not yet made the new codes available to the public.
Until they do, search the bill text for any changes or amendments.

Search 1999 Legislation for: 693.013
-------------------------------------------------------
to cover one's butt....

Sec. 693.014. Immunity From Damages in Civil Action.

(a) In a civil action brought by a person listed in Section 693.013 who
did not object before the removal of corneal tissue, a medical examiner,
justice of the peace, or eye bank official is not liable for damages on
a theory of civil recovery based on a contention that the person's
consent was required before the corneal tissue could be removed.

(b) Chapter 104, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, applies to a justice
of the peace, medical examiner, and their personnel who remove, permit
removal, or deny removal of corneal tissue under this subchapter as if
the justice of the peace, medical examiner, and their personnel were
state officers or employees.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

Note: This information includes legislation enacted through the 75th
Congress. The 76th session of the Texas Legislature has concluded. The
State of Texas has not yet made the new codes available to the public.
Until they do, search the bill text for any changes or amendments.

Search 1999 Legislation for: 693.014

as you can see, they knew it was wrong when they wrote the laws. or
they would not have covered the rear-ends so well...TSS

still disgusted in sunny Bacliff, Texas

kind regards,
terry




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: