Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/79644
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | White, V. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Law and Medicine, 2013; 20(3):629-637 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1320-159X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/79644 | - |
dc.description.abstract | It has long been a basic tenet of the common law that there can be no property interest in human bodies or body parts. However, exceptions to the rule have been recognised from the mid-19th century and developed over time. In the early 21st century, there have been interesting developments in the common law of Australia and England, with Australian Supreme Court judges and the English Court of Appeal casting aside existing exceptions, and finding property rights in human body parts, including gametes, by relying instead on a "rational" and "logical" basis to identify property interests in human body parts. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Vanessa White | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Lawbook Co. | - |
dc.rights | Copyright status unknown | - |
dc.title | Property rights in human gametes in Australia | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest Law publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.