>>12088659The legal question is whether the person extracting it also has rights to do with the extracted tissue whatever they want. This is also an issue of consent, because she was not consented on the potential use of her tissue for research or profitable enterprises
>>12088640Actually, I found this (supreme court of california so not the law of the land elsewhere, but still interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California>Moore became suspicious about a new consent form he was asked to sign that said, "I (do, do not) voluntarily grant to the University of California all rights I, or my heirs, may have in any cell line or any other potential product which might be developed from the blood and/or bone marrow obtained from me". Moore initially signed the consent but refused at later visits and eventually gave the form to an attorney, who then discovered a patent on Moore's cell line, dubbed "Mo", which had been issued to the regents of UCLA in 1984. It named Golde and his research assistant as the inventors.>..claim was rejected by the Los Angeles Superior Court, but...he California Court of Appeal ruled that blood and tissue samples were one's own personal property and that patients could have a right to share in profits derived from them.>The majority opinion first looked at Moore's claim of property interests under existing law. The court first rejected the argument that a person has an absolute right to the unique products of their body, as his products were not unique, as the cells are "no more unique to Moore than the number of vertebrae in the spine or the chemical formula of hemoglobin">court then looked at the policy behind having Moore's cells considered property. Because conversion of property is a strict liability tort, the court feared that extending property rights to include organs would have a chilling effect on medical research. There's a dissent too but character limit won't let me add it
