Active Users:909 Time:02/11/2025 04:55:04 AM
Apparently it isn't, at least in California. Tim Send a noteboard - 13/01/2011 09:35:29 AM
Any physical object or piece of real estate (which is, strictly speaking, a physical object) is technically "property". Trash is property. Mud is property. It's just that sometimes it doesn't belong to someone per se. For example, you can't say "that's my corpse!" and point to a dead person, show that you legally purchased it, etc. Well, it may be possible for Ancient Egyptian mummies. How does Scottish law treat the ownership of ancient mummies?


What I mean is that a corpse isn't even capable, in law, of being owned. That is a very different situation from simply happening to be ownerless for the time being, like trash. In any case, in Scotland there is no ownerless property (except wild animals) – anything without another owner belongs to the Crown as bona vacantia.

As for the USA, I refer you to Moore v Regents of the University of California 793 P 2d 479 (Cal. 1990):

John Moore, suffering from hairy cell leukaemia, had his spleen removed. Dr Golde discovered that cells from his spleen contained potentially beneficial properties. He developed a cell line from the spleen which he eventually sold for $15 million. The products produced as a result were said to be worth several billion dollars. His research on the spleen was carried out without Moore's consent or knowledge. Moore brought an action based on conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and informed consent. The Californian Supreme Court rejected the conversion claim declaring that there was no precedent on which to base a claim that people had property rights in their bodies and that it would be inappropriate for the law now to recognise one. To recognise one would cause difficulties: it would hinder medical research by restricting access to raw materials and lead to a ‘litigation lottery’. The prospect of patients ‘shopping around’ to find who would offer them the best price for their bodily parts or products was not an attractive one.

Re mummies: There is English authority that the application of skilful preservation techniques does make a corpse into property. While English property law is very different from Scots, the doctrine of specificatio may well have the same effect. (This is where you change something so much that it becomes a "new" object, like carving someone else's block of marble into a statue – the sculptor owns the statute but has to pay damages to the owner of the marble). But we won't know if this works until there's a case.

On that "wrongful life" point, I can guarantee you it would fail in a US court. If I remember correctly, something like two thirds of Americans would limit abortions in some way or another.


I'll trust your professional opinion on that one.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.

—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.

—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Reply to message
Some legal questions. - 12/01/2011 06:16:23 PM 685 Views
Yes to both - 12/01/2011 06:31:14 PM 444 Views
Incest isn't necessarily about children. - 12/01/2011 06:33:20 PM 429 Views
Re: Incest isn't necessarily about children. - 12/01/2011 06:57:10 PM 403 Views
Who brought children into it? - 12/01/2011 11:04:12 PM 395 Views
No and depends - 12/01/2011 06:44:02 PM 432 Views
Re: No and depends - 12/01/2011 07:01:35 PM 384 Views
Re: No and depends - 13/01/2011 10:08:15 AM 388 Views
Re: No and depends - 13/01/2011 01:47:54 PM 384 Views
Re: No and depends - 13/01/2011 03:01:42 PM 347 Views
No and yes, because of the issue of consent. - 12/01/2011 07:11:31 PM 370 Views
Only people can provide consent. Corpses are not people, just rotting meat. *NM* - 12/01/2011 08:40:02 PM 163 Views
I suppose that's fair, but I wouldn't try selling it to the family. - 12/01/2011 08:56:30 PM 392 Views
You're confusing two separate issues. - 12/01/2011 09:01:55 PM 394 Views
I think the trauma to the familys could (and probably should) be considered criminal as well. - 12/01/2011 09:07:57 PM 361 Views
How? Why? - 12/01/2011 09:40:32 PM 398 Views
Some personal opinions in the form of answers. - 12/01/2011 08:37:25 PM 417 Views
Re: Some personal opinions in the form of answers. - 12/01/2011 11:01:50 PM 374 Views
Of course a corpse is property. - 13/01/2011 05:27:34 AM 395 Views
Apparently it isn't, at least in California. - 13/01/2011 09:35:29 AM 458 Views
Strangely - 13/01/2011 07:13:17 PM 328 Views
consensual necrophilia? - 12/01/2011 09:40:44 PM 386 Views
Re: consensual necrophilia? - 12/01/2011 09:43:40 PM 361 Views
no to both - 12/01/2011 09:43:28 PM 387 Views
I'm afraid I'm struggling to see what your actual argument is. - 12/01/2011 11:14:29 PM 381 Views
My argument is that society has the right to say some things are just wrong - 13/01/2011 12:12:01 AM 375 Views
Hm? - 12/01/2011 11:07:19 PM 392 Views
Well said (on both) *NM* - 12/01/2011 11:22:08 PM 170 Views
Interesting... - 13/01/2011 12:16:50 AM 379 Views
yes to both *NM* - 13/01/2011 06:21:39 AM 149 Views
Re: Some legal questions. - 13/01/2011 08:33:18 AM 389 Views
Re: Some legal questions. - 13/01/2011 07:06:04 PM 393 Views
hhmmmm - 14/01/2011 03:55:38 AM 363 Views

Reply to Message