Article Sidebar
Published:
Mar 17, 2017Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Ownership and human tissue – the legal conundrum: A response to Jordaan’s critique
Abstract
The debate over whether there should be a property or non-property approach with regard to human tissue is only the tip of the iceberg, because the issues involved are very complex, reflecting profound considerations on the nature of the self and the structuring of society; the balance of power between the citizen, the government and commercial interests; and human beings’ perceptions of themselves and their bodies. This article responds to a publication by Donrich Jordaan titled ‘Social justice and research using human biological material: A response to Mahomed, Nöthling-Slabbert and Pepper’ in the July 2016 SAMJ. The original article to which Jordaan’s critique refers and that provides the source for his response appeared in the South African Journal of Bioethics and Law in 2013, titled ‘The legal position on the classification of human tissue in South Africa: Can tissues be owned?’. It is our contention that Jordaan’s critique is based on a misinterpretation of the issues raised relating to the ownership of human tissue, an issue extensively debated in the academic sphere for many years. Jordaan’s critique focuses on selected aspects of the original article and draws unjustifiable inferences from these. The purpose of this article is to contextualise Jordaan’s critique and reaffirm the validity of the arguments made in the original article in 2013. There are, however, certain aspects of Jordaan’s critique that we as authors of the original article acknowledge and appreciate in the spirit of academic discourse.
