Article Text
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the English Court of Appeal's decision in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust that six men had, for the purposes of their claims against the trust, ownership of the sperm they had produced. The case has been discussed by many commentators and most, if not all, of those who have discussed the case have claimed or assumed that the court held that the claimants had property rights in the sperm they had produced. In this paper, I advance an interpretation of the case that does not regard the court as deciding that the men had property rights (in the narrow sense of that term) in the sperm they had produced. On this view, the ‘ownership’ that the Court of Appeal purported to vest in each of the men was not a right in rem, a right ‘binding the world’. If this is so, it is perhaps unsurprising that some scholars, evaluating the success of the court's reasoning as a justification for vesting the claimants with property rights, have found it to be unsatisfactory.
- Ownership
- Rights
- Tort Law
- Allocation of Organs/Tissues
- Law
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- Lost property? Legal compensation for destroyed sperm: a reflection and comparison drawing on UK and French perspectives
- The current approach of the courts
- The argument for property rights in body parts: scarcity of resources
- 'Advice, not orders’? The evolving legal status of clinical guidelines
- The trespasses of property law
- Body parts in property theory: an integrated framework
- The human body as property? Possession, control and commodification
- NICE head injury guidelines: review of the legal mandate
- Review of the complications and medicolegal implications of vasectomy
- The US Public Health Service “treating tobacco use and dependence clinical practice guidelines” as a legal standard of care