인체 유래 생물학적 물질의 소유권 - 사체를 중심으로 -

정규원,Jung, Kyu Won 대한의료법학회 2017 의료법학 Vol.18 No.1

전통적인 법이론에 의하여 인간은 권리의 주체이기 때문에 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질은 권리의 객체가 될 수 없다. 하지만 의학과 생명과학의 발전으로 인하여 인체로 부터 유래한 생물학적 물질은 다양한 용도로 사용되고 있으며 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질의 객체성 여부와 소유권 인정 여부에 대한 논의는 지속적으로 제기되고 있다. 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 법적으로 파악하는 이론은 전통적으로 자율성에 근거한 모델이었으며 현재도 그것이 가장 보편적으로 받아들여지고 있다. 하지만 자율성 모델에 의하여 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 파악할 경우 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 다루는 현실을 제대로 설명할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 오히려 배분적 정의의 측면에서 볼 때 적절하지 못한 결론에 도달할 수도 있다는 의문이 제기되고 있다. 인체 유래 생물학적 물질을 소유권의 객체로 파악하려는 소유권 모델은 인간의 존엄과 가치에 반하는 이론 구성이라는 의혹을 받고 있다. 하지만 소유권은 단일한 권리가 아니며 다양한 권리들의 집합체이며 그 내용이 어떻게 구성될 것인가는 객체의 특성 등을 고려하여 판단하면 될 것으로 생각된다. 본 논문은 인체 유래 생물학적 물질의 소유권 전체 보다는 일단 사체로부터 유래한 물질의 소유권 인정 여부를 중점적으로 다루었다. 이를 통하여 인체 유래 생물학적 물질전반에 대한 법이론적 고찰이 현재의 과학적 사실에 적합한 형태로 이루어지기를 기대한다. Ownership is the bundle of rights that allow a person or institute to use and control an object. As the biomedical science is advanced, we should consider whether human biological material should be recognized as property. Whether separated parts of the human body can be objects of ownership is a different issue. Many thought that separated parts of the human body could not be objects of ownership. This idea is primarily based on this thought: even if a piece of human biological material is separated from a person, it still relates to that person, and if treated as a thing, human dignity may be harmed. However, some commentators have admitted separated parts of the human body into the realm of property. Though a person owns his/her body or body parts, this does not mean that he/she can do anything he/she desires. There are many natural and social limitations to exercise the ownership of human biological material as discussed above. Human dignity is the core consideration whether or not we recognize that ownership of human biological material biomedical research and knowledge.

인체유래물질의 재산권의 허용범위와 그 이용을 위한 관련법규의 정비방안

이정현(Lee Jung-Hyun),박인걸(Piao-Ren Jin) 한국법학회 2010 법학연구 Vol.37 No.-

우리나라의 한국인 인체자원 종합관리사업(Korea Biobank Project)은 인체유래생물자원으로부터 한국인의 질병과 유전정보와의 관계를 밝히고 새로운 패러다임의 질병 치료방법을 제시하기 위함이다. 이러한 연구를 수행하기 위해서는 인체유래물질과 조직기증자의 개인생활, 의료정보를 통합적으로 수집ㆍ관리하여야 한다. 따라서 인체유래물질의 충분한 공급은 연구의 경쟁력을 확보하는 것이다. 그러나 현재의 법률로는 이러한 인체유래물질의 수집ㆍ보관ㆍ이용ㆍ분배의 근거를 포섭하지 못하고 있어 이에 대한 논의를 살펴보고, 관련법규의 정비방안을 모색하였다. The Purpose of the Korea Biobank Project is to provide a resource for research with the aim of improving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness and promoting health throughout society. Participants will grant access to their health-related records, provide some biological sample(e.g. blood and urine), have various measurements and answer questions about their lifestyle. However, the current laws include not the collection of human biological materials, storage, use, distribution. I take a look at the discussion and seek equipment way of connection legislation.

인체 유래 물질의 재산권성에 대한 의료법학적 고찰

이웅희 대한의료법학회 2009 의료법학 Vol.10 No.2

(Background) Recent biotechnological breakthroughs are shedding new lights on various ethical and legal issues about human biological material. Since Rudolph Virchow, a German pathologist, had founded the medical discipline of cellular pathology, issues centering around human biological materials began to draw attention. The issues involving human biological materials were revisited with more attention along with series concerns when the human genome map was finally completed. Recently, with researches on human genes and bioengineering reaping enormous commercial values in the form of material patent, such changes require a society to reassess the present and future status of human tissue within the legal system. This in turn gave rise to a heated debate over how to protect the rights of material donors: property rule vs. no property rule. (Debate and Cases) Property rule recognizes the donors' property rights on human biological materials. Thus, donors can claim real action if there were any bleach of informed consent or a donation contract. Donors can also claim damages to the responsible party when there is an infringement of property rights. Some even uphold the concept of material patents overtaking. From the viewpoint of no property rule, human biological materials are objects separated from donors. Thus, a recipient or a third party will be held liable if there were any infringement of donor's human rights. Human biological materials should not be commercially traded and a patent based on a human biological materials research does not belong to the donor of the tissues used during the course of research. In the US, two courts, Moore v. Regents of the University of California, and Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Inc., have already decided that research participants retain no ownership of the biological specimens they contribute to medical research. Significantly, both Moore and Greenberg cases found that the researcher had parted with all ownership rights in the tissue samples when they donated them to the institutions, even though there was no provision in the informed consent forms stating either that the participants donated their tissue or waived their rights to ownership of the tissue. These rulings were led to huge controversy over property rights on human tissues. This research supports no property rule on the ground that it can protect the human dignity and prevent humans from objectification and commercialization. Human biological materials are already parted from human bodies and should be treated differently from the engineering and researches of those materials. Donors do not retain any ownership. (Suggestions) No property rule requires a legal breakthrough in the US in terms of donors' rights protection due to the absence of punitive damages provisions. The Donor rights issue on human biological material can be addressed through prospective legislation or tax policies, price control over patent products, and wider coverage of medical insurance. (Conclusions) Amid growing awareness over commercial values of human biological materials, no property rule should be adopted in order to protect human dignity but not without revamping legal provisions. The donors' rights issue in material patents requires prospective legislation based on current uncertainties. Also should be sought are solutions in the social context and all these discussions should be based on sound medical ethics of both medical staffs and researchers.

인체에서 유래한 물질의 소유 및 이용에 관한 민사상의 제문제

소재선 경희대학교 법학연구소 2011 경희법학 Vol.46 No.1

Im täglichen Leben hinterlassen wir unsere körperlichen Teilen als “restliche Gegestände” im Friseurladen oder Krankenhaus ohne große Bedachtsamkeit, z. B. Haare in der Friseursalon, abgebaute Blüte in der ärztlichen Behandlung, herausgezogene Blinddärme oder geschnittene Organe im chirurgischen Eingriff usw. Zwar ist es bekannt geworden, dass die herausgezogenen Mutterküchen als kosmetiksche Materialen genutzt sind, aber die meisten Wöchnerinnen bringen das nicht mit. Diese obengenannten Situationen sind allgemeine Tendenz im alltäglichen Leben und die Verwertungsmöglichkeit der herausgezogenen bzw. geschnittenen körperlichen Teilen ist nicht berücksichtigt geworden. Aber heutezutage ist es neulich ins Auge zu fassen, dass wie die gezogenen körperlichen Teilen verwertet bzw. genutzt werden können. Denn durch DNA-Test, das kann man mit den gezogenen Haaren, Fingernägel, geringeren Blutspüren, herausgezogenen Zähnen machen, kann die Herausfindung der genetischen Informationen ermöglichtet werden. Manchmal hat man auch gedacht, dass die herausgezogenen bzw. geschnittenen Körperteilen in den Papierkorb geworfen sind. Denn die obengenannten restlichen Körperteilen sind normalerweise als Nichtsnutz anzusehen sind. Aber diese Tendenz ist durch den John Moore Fall gänzlich umgewandelt geworden. In diesem Fall haben der Hausarzt und die pharmazeutische Gesellschaft mit Benutzung der gezogenen Zellen die neuen Arzneimitteln entwickelt, aber ohne Genehmigung des Patienten. Durch die Entwicklung der neuen Arzneimitteln haben sie viel Geld verdient, so verlangt er auch seinen Teil von diesem Umsatz.