Similar cases are true for most other possessions.
Whatever else a person may possess in this world, notwithstanding, no doubt naturally evident that he or she claims the cells of his or her body. Where else could the idea of possession start, other than with the parts of a substantial corpus that all would perceive as "me"? However, there have been claims and even court cases regarding the issue of ownership of human body tissues. For instance, if part of the patient body is removed and used for research or any other purpose, does the patient still retains the rights to these body parts. If not, how far do his rights of possession extend as concerns his own body parts? This essay will explore the historical and contemporary concept of ownership of human tissues and ethics. The guiding thesis for this essay is that the rights of ownership of human tissues extends to as far as the tissues are within the body1. The essay will explore the law concerning this issue and provide arguments for and against the thesis statement.
The concept of property has been legally unclear over many years. The issue gets even more complicated when it comes to the basic question whether people actually own their own bodies. With any legally accepted property, the alleged owner has the right to use the property in any way they please only if the use does not harm others. If so is true, then donated human parts, and organs are still in the possessions of the donor and he, or she has the rights to dictate how they are to be used and/or disposed. However, this is not as simple as it sounds. With the advent of biotechnology, the world has witnessed multiple controversies related to the ownership and use of bits and pieces from human bodies whether alive or not. Human tissues and cells are currently scattered over a wide range of laboratories, sperm