:切片、蜡块和固定的组织归谁所有？

切片、蜡块和固定的组织归谁所有？
时间：2003-12-29 8:21:24 来源：北京协和医院病理科 阅读655次
I have read with great interest the recent special article dealing with pathologists and the judicial process. In the article Dr. Epstein states, "slides, blocks, and fixed tissues are property of the laboratory and do not belong to the patient" and refers this statement to his reference 30.
For years I was told, and this is particularly stated in the deontology Code of the Sociedad Argentina de Patologia, that such materials belong to the patient. We, as doctors, just assist the patient and try to do our best, but directly or indirectly the patient has paid for the work done on his tissues/fluids. Pathologists, after doing our diagnostic workup, may be seen as curators of the materials left afterward. In the same sense, who is the owner of the imaging films obtained from the patient? I hope that the above-referred statement may be further extended to gain some knowledge about the arguments that sustain it.
Ricardo Drut. M..D.
Servicio de patologia
Hospital de Ninos "Superiora Sor Maria Ludovica"
La Plata, Argentina
References
1. Epstein JL. Pathologists and the judicial process: how to avoid it. Am J Surg Pathol 2001:25:527-37
2. Sabella JD. Pathologist: what to do when you receive requests for evidentiary Materials. Rist management sourcebook. Napa, CA: Doctor‘s Co. 1999
Authors‘ reply:
There are several sources that support the contention that tissues and blocks are the property of the hospital and not the patient. The following is a summary of some of the references supporting this contention.
In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 271 Cal.Rptr. 146 Cal.(1990), the most famous case involving the property rights of a human source, the California Supreme Court held that a patient whose cells had been removed and used by his physicians and others to construct a valuable cell line did not have a course of action for conversion. In support of its holding, the court noted the lack of any precedent holding that an individual has a property interest in excised tussue.
In Corneliov. Stamford Hosp.. 717A.2d 140 (Conn. 1998), the court held that the plaintiff possessed no property right to her cells, contained in pap smear specimen slides. To support an action for replevin. See id. At 148. Affirming the lower court‘s decision, the Connecticut supreme Court stated that under connecticut law, which restricts the disposition of pathologic waste, a patient possesses little or no interest in such waste removed from her body. Further, as the lower court observed, the plaintiff herself did not expect to retain possession of the cells after their revoval since she signed a consent form that explicitly included the right to dispose of all tissue. Cornelio v. Stamford Hosp., 1997 WL 430619. 7(Conn. Super. 1997). The supreme court also reasoned that pathology slides form part of a patient‘s medical records, which are owned by the physician in furtherance of public policy. See 717 A.2d. at 146-48
Jonathan I. Epstein, M.D.
Department of Pathology
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A
Richard Kidwell, ESQ.
Professional Liability Claims Office
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
This paper is from A J Surg Pathol.2002;26(2)