ABSTRACT
This article explores the concept of human body rights throughout history and in the current legal system. It argues that the human body is fundamentally different from traditional property and that current legal frameworks struggle to define ownership of the body and its parts. The analysis examines historical perspectives, including Roman law and the Justinian school of thought. Contemporary legal debates are highlighted through recent precedents set by Courts of Law. The unresolved questions such as how the liberal philosophies impact the current discussions and whether or not the Human Body is a separate entity with ownership rights are also raised here.
CENTRAL ARGUMENT
The article’s main argument is that conventional property law faces a special challenge from the human body. The human body and its products (cells, organs) are hard to classify under current legal frameworks, unlike land or objects. This ambiguity makes it necessary to reassess the philosophical and legal definitions of property ownership in light of societal shifts and technological improvements.
INTRODUCTION
It is clear by looking at the many aspects of property law and the tenets of property rights that these ideas came about when people began to perceive objects as belonging to them. Among them are kingdoms, lands, decorations, bonds, and sometimes even the natural world. But the first thing a person has a right to call their own after birth is their body. The multiple organs comprised in the wide range of organ systems each have diverse functions, differentiate at birth to fulfill certain roles, etc. And we as a being with consciousness have rights and ownership attached to it. This article examines human body rights from the time of the Titans to the modern democratic era in order to better understand how laws, rules, morality, and philosophical understandings have developed in the particular domain of the human body as property or a right over one’s own body. The purpose of this study piece is to emphasize that the human body is, possibly, the most important aspect that unifies social, legal, biological, and anthropological principles. With the development of technology, the domain of the human body and vested rights grows, and it is the responsibility of the law to keep up with these developments by expanding and becoming more comprehensive as necessary. Reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and kidney donation that save the lives of family members are examples of this, as are the use of cadavers to teach medical students. In order to compare them with contemporary issues, this article looks at the legal and philosophical frameworks that currently govern the property rights of the human body.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
THE PRINCIPLE ACCESSIO
This illustrates the Roman paradigm of jurisprudential reasoning, which rests on a foundational idea but keeps it tightly bound. The legal term “ACCESS′SIO” designates a union of two objects such that one is seen as a component portion of the other; one is regarded as the principal, and the other as an addition or accession to it. There are situations when it can be unclear which should be regarded as the main item and which as an addition. However, the owner of the major item, whatever it may be, also acquired ownership of the accession. The most widely accepted type of accesio is that which results from the union of an object with the ground; once the object and the ground are fully united, the object belongs to the person who owns the ground. Buildings that are constructed on another person’s land belong to the owner of the original land, unless they have been constructed of movable materials.
The Justinian school of thought, which maintains that something is either owned by the person who created it or that it does not belong to them at all and is instead the property of the person who created it, is another concept that is closely related to a framework of discussion regarding the origins of the idea that the human body is property. It was also expressed this kind of thinking when acknowledged that the central idea of the Roman school of law was that property belonged to the creator rather than the owner, or the other way around.
If we consider a human cell or any other kind of cell that is truly only used in laboratory conditions and research initiatives. It is crucial to understand that sometimes specimens from procedures like biopsies, such as blood samples or pieces of microscopic tissue structures may be needed. When a lab researcher is working with a sample of blood leucocytes, thrombocytes, or tissues, for example, an individual has the right to possess certain types of cells in certain circumstances. Likewise, in the event that a protein or any kind of segmental DNA is separated, the lab’s researcher and, on occasion, the lab itself have a right to property in a noticeable separation. There are situations in which it may be necessary to question samples of human body or lineal tissue. Under the Material Transfer Agreement, these particular assets are specifically covered.
THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
It is a Doctrine brought forth by the Western Countries which could be briefly explained as anything that is no longer owned by you or is not connected to your body is not your property. For instance, donating your blood to a hospital.
THE DILEMMA OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE HUMAN BODY IN THE PRESENT WORLD
Various cases have been reported to courts across the globe in a variety of formats, including the assignment of a right to reclaim property that has been pilfered, such as human body parts, blood samples, and even spermatocytes. When it comes to figuring out whether a right to property or a right to inherit property can be linked to a conflict between a legislator and a court of law, all of these cases have shown that the common law leaves no space for interpretation.
The three fundamental tenets of modern property law are deposition, exclusion, and possession. It is challenging to distinguish precisely between the three fundamental qualities of these features and the human body as a whole. Consequently, it is imperative to examine these components from an opposing perspective. If our problems with the existing principles of property law cannot be resolved, there are two ways in which we might address the ambiguity in line with these criteria that we apply to establish who is the owner of the human body and its products.
While taking a different approach to investigating the legal perspective on the concept of the human body instead of trying to reach a conclusive answer to the question of whether or not a human body is property. In the case of R v. Bentham, a man who was suspected of possessing a firearm but was actually holding his hands under his jacket was found not to have been liable under possession when the court ruled that an unreserved hand could not be considered a competent thing. A person’s hand or even a finger is not a thing at all because they do not exist and do not understand property in the sense of a separate object.
In another case Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust, The court made an effort to discuss the possibility that a man’s donated sperm could be inherited by his spouse. The decision appeared to take precedence over the established hospital protocols regarding admittance or rejection of patients’ sperm assistance. Furthermore, it was thought that while coming to this decision should most likely be from the standpoint of common sense or even a common law principle. It had been determined that semen kept in storage belongs to an individual and can be inherited.
As a result, it is evident to us that the common law court has established numerous cases that explain the discussion surrounding property rights concerning the human body as well as technology, biological development aids, legislation, and societal developments.
The subject of corpses being used by medical students to be taught about anatomy and, whether a body devoid of soul should be regarded as a thing or not was recently raised by the courts, however as of right now, the property right of a deceased corpse remains unrecognized. However, the common law theory of today has changed to reflect the advancements in medical technology, requiring that a dead body be distinguished from a body employed for study.
THE QUESTION “IS THE HUMAN BODY VIABLE TO BE A PROPERTY?” IN INDIA
Given that people had total ownership over their bodies, it should have been legal to sell one’s body for prostitution, end one’s life by euthanasia, or receive payment for donating one’s organs. According to a similar line of reasoning, exercising the right to exercise should not be affected by drug usage, poisoning consumption, or building jumping. Unquestionably, these rights are an essential component of ownership. Such practices are however usually condemned/prohibited and carry criminal repercussions in our country.
Thus, it can be said that humans do not legally have whole or absolute ownership over their bodies based on the ideas above. Nonetheless, it appears that there are two circumstances in which a person’s property rights may be recognized by the law, such as when:
The person is dead, their autonomy is no longer relevant and they are no longer the original occupant of the body.
The body’s components can either be separated or regenerate, and they don’t seem to be inextricably connected to a person’s ability to survive and be autonomous. The original occupant of the body retains full capacity to make decisions even after they are removed.
CONCLUSION
It can be observed that there is a lack of a precise definition of “property” by relating property principles to the human body. It is crucial to understand that the concept of a right to property, such as land or other immovable property, is distinct from the concept of a property right related to a human body and its derivatives. The most crucial thing to keep in mind, therefore, considering the case law and historical debates, is that the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves are “What is Property according to law” and “What is Property that is based on philosophy.” It is questioned whether a liberal approach philosophy should or shouldn’t be used to try to rationalize a situation where the idea that the human body is an independent institution. The relationship between property rights and individual liberty is just one of the several subjects that could lead to conversation.
It is indisputable that technology and other cutting-edge innovations have had an immense effect on molding our civilization. It acts as a counterbalance to the notion that shifts in society will unavoidably have an impact on the state and, thus, state laws. It might be necessary to amend laws and philosophical frameworks in light of these technological breakthroughs, which permits us to understand the profound changes that the legal profession has experienced recently, as well as the consequences that have ensued.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Article written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
