Body Parts!

(As many of you know, I have recently entered law school. I hope to turn this blog in some respects into a "law blog" (with the help of my good friend, bob loblaw, of course) in which I can speculate and think out my opinions of some of the cases we read and the topics we discuss. Today's topic concerns property rights of one's body, organs and tissue. While I know nothing regarding property (yet!), I felt compelled to write pertaining our discussion which focused mainly on the question of whether or not people should be able to sell parts of their body.)

On Self-ownership and Body Preperty Rights: In light of Moore v Regents of the University of California

When considering this issue, it seems right that one is in possession of one’s own self, and to the extent that one remains in possession of one’s self and products derived therefrom, one should be free to dispose of those objects as one sees fit. Given my admittedly novice understanding of the law so far, I also feel that the courts would be the best venue to set this kind of precedent.
One of the rights of ownership is to dispose of property, and there is ultimately no compelling reason to forbid individuals from the sale of this property, if they so choose. A main argument of opponents is to appeal to the slippery slope, that perhaps this would lead to some sort of shadowy market for body parts (indeed, such things, albeit illegally, already exist) and perhaps even, one might envision that a new slave trade might emerge. Debtors might be called upon for their organs if they could not make monetary payments and all other sorts of nightmare situations might arise. But, the reader should halt at this term, because we must expose the slippery slope for what it is: at base, a logical fallacy.
Perhaps the court is being this far-sighted, but if one tries hard enough, one can imagine an exception to every rule, this is a basic concept. If this were not the case, one could imagine the courts might have already written all the rules. Then, judges and legislators could rest at ease, there being no further foreseeable (and in this case, possible) scenarios. In fact, all of the Universe could reasonably be thought to be nearing a time where it was completely drawn under the yoke of Understanding, that Man would have become Master of the Universe. But, sadly, this simply is not the case.
Nor is it the case that the events imagined within the slippery slope are inevitable. In fact, many of them simply do not follow, to put it mildly. For the very same reason the courts refuse to set a precedent in this particular case, the notion that a new legitimacy might be found for slavery is extremely unlikely. The courts felt that Legislature is the proper venue for such decisions, that they are subject to greater accountability and pressures to reflect the views of their constituents. However, real inspection reveals that they are also the subjects of great pressures from lobbying groups and from within their own party. Recent events have highlighted the extent to which legislation has become a partisan issue and not a matter of conscience. But, if we return to our utopian Congress, given the current moral views regarding such topics, we could easily presume that they would not ever sign any bill that legalized slavery or legitimized a black market of organs. Even in an ideal system, this argument for legislation barely holds. And, we are far from ideal.
Fortunately, even if the courts did rule that sale of body parts by those who were in possession of them (ie-the person to whom they were a part) should be allowed in toto and in all regards, this does still not necessarily lead to the apocalyptic doomsday that has been foretold. Court law is subservient to statutory law, which already restricts the means in which tissue may be transferred (such as the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act), and as a last check, the Constitution itself has outlawed slavery. These rules are checks to the free reign that detractors imagine in their slippery slope, and surely there are many more.

(in case you don’t believe me…)
13th Amendment to the Constitution
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. “

Capitalism rests on the theory of a free market, and it premises that one may sell one’s commodities to gain capital. This should not be restricted, except in cases when it interferes with someone else’s rights or perhaps when it conflicts with existing law. Moral considerations must be taken with a grain of salt, as they are only a temporary reflection of the current social and cultural norms. Morals are constantly changing, and therefore cannot serve as a consistent and fundamental basis for the law. There simply is too much flexibility in what we view as moral, and what we may feel is right or wrong may change given a different set of circumstances, even when we preserve the relations and interactions of the original scenario.