6 - Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Summary

Moore v. Regents of University of California was a California Supreme Court case from 1990 adjudicating the claims of a patient whose tissues were used to produce an immortal cell line. Though Moore consented to several procedures, his physician did not inform him that his cells were valuable to the physician’s research and economic interests. The original opinion recognized Moore’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and informed consent but rejected his claim for conversion (a tort claim for theft). Professor Lisa Ikeomoto’s feminist judgment illuminates the role of informed consent in transforming the doctor-patient relationship from one that is paternalistic to one premised on patient rights and recognizes the role of the women’s health movement in achieving that transformation. In recognizing the plaintiff’s property-based tort claim, she also discusses how the grievance Moore is expressing is about exploitation by an industry based on commercializing cells and tissues. In her commentary, Professor Jessica Roberts highlights that courts have recently become more receptive to recognizing robust legal rights for individuals who provide tissue and data for research purposes.