What rights do we have over our organs and bodies?

A lot of organ-related articles keep coming up on websites I read lately, which makes me more interested and I start researching it further.

This article in the SF Chronicle titled "Woman sues San Mateo County coroner for keeping son's heart" brings the topic up today. Her son died of an undetected heart ailment and the coroner took the heart "for testing to verify the cause of death after an autopsy" and then "the autopsy found there was probable cause to conclude he had died of a heart ailment, but the heart needed to be shipped to Stanford to be sure" (quotes from article). The coroner is quoted as saying this is not an uncommon practice.

Sounds reasonable... except the mother wasn't told. So when do coroners have to notify the family and when don't they?

Jenkins-Toney [mother's attorney] maintains that coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so.
At the center of the legal dispute are two sections of state law, one dealing with body tissue, the other body parts.
The first section gives coroners the right to retain body tissue removed at autopsy. The other gives coroners the power to keep body parts removed at autopsy if they believe it is "necessary or advisable for scientific investigation and training," including enlisting help from outside labs or hospitals.
But that section also says body parts can be given to hospitals for research or similar purposes only with a relative's consent or if the dead person previously made such arrangements. Coroners may proceed without a relative's consent if they make a reasonable effort to obtain it.

These laws are news to me but good to know. What bothers me is the mom buried her son, thinking his whole body was there, and it wasn't. She says she was devastated to learn his heart was missing, that she hadn't been told and when she called the coroner, he said she'd have to pay to dig her son up and rebury him. That seems unfair.

This article on Slate.com talks about the ethical price of organ donorship. Similar to the blog post I wrote awhile back on another Slate.com article regarding global desperately poor people selling their organs for food (here), the author addresses the sticky issue of when should the government regulate who can give organs when. Is it patronizing to citizens to tell them they can't sell their kidney or eyeball? Another Slate organ article "Who owns a donated kidney?" here. I think they have the monopoly on this subject, or at least the monopoly on easily linking article by topics.

Current US Laws:

1) Selling your organs (any of them) is illegal.
2) A dead body cannot own property and cannot be property. Thus heirs have no rights over the dead body of a deceased family member*.
3) You can't sue an organ donor network for giving away a kidney, even if the donor's family wanted you to have it (at least in NY).
4) You don't have rights to tissue removed from your body, or any proceeds/research done with that tissue (not sure if I'm stating that correctly, more below**).
5) Coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so (it doesn't appear that doctors can remove tissue without your consent/knowledge and keep it, according to #4).


*From article - "They can be "lawfully in possession" of a body, which only means they have the right to bury or cremate it, order or refuse an autopsy, and authorize the donation of organs. This right of lawful possession allows the next of kin to steward the body from the deathbed to the grave—but not to sell it or give it away to a friend."

** From article - 'In one seminal 1990 case, the California Supreme Court ruled against John Moore, a businessman who sued the University of California after doctors created—and patented—a cell line derived from tissue in his cancerous spleen, which the doctors had removed. His tissue produced an extremely profitable antibacterial and cancer-fighting cell line, and Moore sought a share of the profits, claiming a property right to the byproducts of his own tissue. Though the court allowed that doctors might have deceived Moore by not explaining their intentions for his spleen, it forcefully reiterated that Moore had no property right to his tissue. Several other cases have addressed the legal status of embryos in situations in which divorced couples have fought for "custody" rights; one Tennessee case established that while embryos—like corpses—were neither persons nor property, they nevertheless "occupy an interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life."'