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
An imaginary legal conundrum: A reply to the response by Mahomed, Nöthling-Slabbert and Pepper
Abstract
In their original article on the subject of research using human biological material, Mahomed, Nöthling-Slabbert and Pepper advanced the notion that the law regarding ownership of human biological material is uncertain, and proposed that our country’s healthcare policy of altruism be changed to mandatory profit-sharing by research participants. In my critique article, I took issue with the notion that the relevant law is uncertain, and suggested that Mahomed et al. failed to present a convincing argument in support of the proposed policy change from altruism to profit-sharing. In their response to my critique article, Mahomed et al. persist with the notion that the relevant law is uncertain; I suggest that this notion is erroneous, as our common law in this regard is well established, and as the authors base their argument exclusively on foreign case law. The authors further fail to make use of the opportunity to augment their argument in support of their proposed policy change from altruism to profit-sharing – in fact, they contradict themselves by disavowing their proposed policy change.
