1

國立高雄第一科技大學科技法律研究所案例討論課程：醫療與法律

遺體之使用及歸屬權 指導老師：周天所長

報 告 人：碩專班二年級 9520704 林杏麟案號： Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran C.A.9 (Cal.),2002.

2

Richard A. Newman Kenneth S. Obarski

SATHYAVAGLSWARAN, M.D Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner of

the County of Los Angeles

Robert NEWMAN Barbara Obarski

移除眼角膜 遺體之財

產權

法院

California Government Code § 27491.47

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit （原告勝訴 )

United States District Court for the Central District of California

dismissed for failure to state a claim (原告敗訴 )

爭點： 遺體之所有權

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

October 1997

1999

3

事實 Robert Newman and Barbara Obarski (the

parents) each had children, Richard Newman and Kenneth Obarski, who died in Los Angeles County in October 1997.

The Office of the Coroner for the County of Los Angeles (the coroner) obtained possession of the bodies of the children.

4

Removed the corneas from those bodies without the knowledge of the parents and without an attempt to notify them and request consent.

The parents became aware of the coroner's actions in September 1999 and subsequently filed this § 1983 action alleging a deprivation of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5

爭點一 地方法院直接駁回上訴。 The United States District Court for the

Central District of California, J. Spencer Letts, J., dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss prior to a scheduled hearing and without a written opinion explaining the basis for the dismissal.

6

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

要符合這項憲法的規定，必須要符合以下三項規定 ,(1) a deprivation (2) of property (3) under color of state law.

7

Defendant presumed consent laws that allow the taking

and transfer of body parts by a coroner without the consent of next of kin as long as no objection to the removal is known.

Government Code § 27491.47, enacted in 1983, was such a law.

8

Presumed consent laws California Government Code § 27491.47

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the coroner may, in the course of an autopsy, remove and release or authorize the removal and release of corneal eye tissue from a body within the coroner's custody, if ... the coroner has no knowledge of objection to the removal....

In 1998, § 27491.47(a)(2) was amended to require that the coroner obtain written or telephonic consent of the next of kin prior to removing corneas.

9

爭點二 遺體的所有權。 The coroner argues that the dismissal of the

parents' complaint was proper because they could not have a property interest in their children's corneas.

10

Plaintiff Fourteenth Amendment It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and

ratified on July 9, 1868.

11

判決 Fisher, Circuit Judge法官認為：長期存在的加州法律，效力平行於普通法，最親近的家屬擁有遺體的所有權，要剝奪這項權利以前，根據美國憲法第 14條修正案，必須要有適當的法律程序。 發回更審， Reversed and remanded.

12

判決理由 美國憲法第 14條修正案是保護人民擁有財產的律法。 所以，我們首先必須先了解歷史上對遺體保護及所有權的法律。

13

A. 有關遺體的普通法 古羅馬的民法，規定葬禮的收費要跟死者代表人收取，其次為繼承人 .... 繼承人被要求遵守遺囑舉行葬禮。羅馬教宗有權力去提供沒地方埋葬的死者葬禮。 17 ”世紀的英國，包括歐洲認為， 人有被

” 埋葬的權利 ，這個觀念和責任被帶到殖民地。 兩者之間的差異在於宗教的介入。

14

所以， Blackstone “解釋 繼承者對於墳墓及紀念碑有擁有權，但對於遺體則沒有。即使是對遺體有所不敬，也不能提起訴訟，但必須沒有傷害或打擾到這些遺體的前提下。

15

轉折點 1840 case of Rex v. Stewart, 12 AD. & E.

773 (1840) 。 窮人死在醫院沒錢埋葬。 死在誰屋簷下誰就要負責埋葬此人。不能沒包裹遺體就埋葬。

16

19世紀後，對於屍體的褻瀆及遺體亂置的情況增加，加上醫學的進步，對遺體處理方式不同。 法院開始承認最親的親屬有遺體擁有權。政府不能侵占私人墓園。

17

加州法律 In 1872, California 制定 Penal Code § 292, 強調最近親屬的埋葬遺體的法律責任。 In 1899, the California Supreme Court 宣判最近親屬對遺體有絕對的所有權。 其所有權大於死者的遺囑。

O'Donnel's body to his desired grave in Ireland Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68, 63 P. 170 (1900)

對於 Enos 的審判死者不能依照其遺矚埋葬被立法破棄。

18

Quasi property(準物權 ) Describe the rights of next of kin to the

body of the deceased.

19

在 1931 年 , 對於遺體家屬有決對的權利包括擁有，控制、但處置跟Penal Code § 292所規範的責任被立法為Health and Safety Code § 7100.

20

Civil litigants have no right to demand an autopsy, and friends of the deceased have no right to attend the burial, over the objection of next of kin.

Violation of the correlative duty of others to refrain from disturbing the body is subject to an action for “tortious interference with a right to dispose of a decedent's remains.”

21

C. 對於遺體部分轉移之權利 1954 年，第一個腎移植成功。 1968 年， the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), 加州同年也接受 , 授權予最親近家屬遺轉遺體作為醫療或研究之用的權利。但嚴禁有買賣行為。

22

“presumed consent” 推定同意 1970 和 1980年代，醫學進步對於器官的要求增加，使政府必須制定新的方案來增加器官來源。 UAGA法案僅同意經家屬同意後的器官才能做為捐贈用途，但卻阻礙器官的獲得。 所以某些州制定預立同意書的條文，同意驗屍官在沒有尚未了解親屬的反對下，可以先移除或轉移部分移遺體。

23

Other laws, including the 1987 version of the UAGA, authorize the taking of body parts without consent only where a reasonable effort has been made to locate the next of kin and obtain consent to the transfer. Jaffe, supra at 536-537. The majority of states adhere to the original version of the UAGA, which requires consent from the donee or next of kin for any transfer of organs. Id. at 538.

24

訴訟程序的分析 加州為了增加眼角膜的捐贈，訂定了

§ 27491.47(a) “法案，授與驗屍官 remove and release or authorize the removal and release of corneal eye tissue from a body within the coroner's custody” without any effort to notify and obtain the consent of next of kin “if ... [t]he coroner has no knowledge of objection to the removal.”

這個法律同時給予驗屍官在行為後的法律豁免權。 27491.47(b).

25

法院在根據普通法的精神及憲法第 14條修正案下，認為遺體眼角膜的所有權在父母。 加州在未經同意下取走眼角摩違反了死者的尊嚴，司法程序又剝奪了父母的權利。

26

我們並不認為加州對於為了公眾利益對遺體器官不具有獲得的權利。 但法官被要求是要來小心評估國家的利益，當某些財產的擁有權被剝奪的時候有一定的訴訟程序。

27

我們的憲法也要求政府去確保當人民的權利被侵害時，要有仔細的審查。 所以，我們重新審判地方法院退回該雙親案例未經仔細審查就退回的判決。

28

The dismissal of the parents' § 1983 claim is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

29

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, 不同意見書 :

I dissent because I do not believe that the asthenic legal interest in a decedent's body, which California confers upon relatives and others, should be treated as a puissant giant for federal constitutional purposes.

30

To begin with, it has always been true in California that absent a statute “there is no property in a dead body.” Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68, 69, 63 P. 170, 171 (1900). For that reason, no action for conversion will lie against someone who is said to have damaged or taken a part of the body. See Gray v. S. Pac. Co., 21 Cal.App.2d 240, 246, 68 P.2d 1011, 1015 (1937).

31

For that reason, no action for conversion will lie against someone who is said to have damaged or taken a part of the body. See Gray v. S. Pac. Co., 21 Cal.App.2d 240, 246, 68 P.2d 1011, 1015 (1937).

32

To the extent that any right exists, it is, in general, merely a right to possession. Id. That right exists solely “for the limited purpose of determining who shall have its custody for burial.” Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1110, 127 Cal.Rptr. 80, 85 (1976)

33

California's statutory scheme reflects all of that. It decidedly does not confer a property right upon anyone.

Assuming that a decedent has not made his own arrangements for disposal of his own earthly remains,FN1 the state makes sure that somebody else will both do so and pay for it.

34

To that end, California has provided that “[t]he right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person ... vests in, and the duty of disposition and the liability for the reasonable cost of disposition of the remains devolves upon,” a list of individuals. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7100(a).

35

And the state has created something like a table of intestate succession for the purpose of assuring that the right and duty land firmly on a defined group. First comes the person who has a power of attorney for healthcare. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7100(a)(1). Then comes the spouse. Id. at (a)(2). Then adult children, then parents, then next of kin.

36

Is not it interesting that the holder of a power of attorney comes before the closest relatives, and equally interesting to see that the public administrator may wind up with the “right?” Or is it essentially a duty?

37

I rather think that it is really a duty rather than a right.

A duty in one person must mean that a right is lodged in someone else, it seems pellucid that the state holds the right to demand that someone on the list bear the burden of disposing of the deceased's remains; it then makes it possible for that person to *801 do so by also giving him the right to do so.

Again, that hardly looks like the kind of interest that United States Constitution was designed to protect.

38

when the state sees to it that the duty, with its necessarily associated right, devolves upon a person, it can constitutionally limit that duty and the right that goes with it. And that is precisely what California did when it declared that the coroner can, in the course of an autopsy, release corneal eye tissue if he “has no knowledge of objection to the removal and release of corneal tissue having been made by the decedent or any other person specified in Section 7151.5 of the Health and Safety Code.”Cal. Gov't Code § 27491.47(a) (1983)

39

In that respect, it should be noted that the people referred to in § 7151.5FN4 are not precisely the same as the people referred to in § 7100(a). The so-called right to consent, therefore, does not follow the so-called duty, and right, to see to interment. This, again, demonstrates just how asthenic the right conferred by § 7100(a) really is.

40

Thanks for your attentions.