Originally Posted by Rigged

Ok first off, this is something I know a little about. Bioethics is really an emerging field with 0 precedent to go on. So we are really just making it up as we go.

The question that would enter my mind is: how do we define life? Once we figure that out the rest seems easy. But that is a very hard question to answer isn't it?

IMO and from what I know, plants are not considered "life" like you or I...neither are domestic animals. Yes, they are living but they are not sentient and are really considered things or "chattels."

YOU CANNOT PATIENT HUMAN TISSUES/CELLS/BLOOD etc. You can't take some of my blood and find a cure for cancer in my cells, walk over to the patent office and say I want this patented as "smith's cure for cancer." That cannot be done (w/o express permission).

There are several cases I know that SupCt has struck that down. Now there is a loop hole, of course, anything DERIVED from human tissues is patentable. For example, you find a cure for cancer in my blood you get my consent, and run my blood though a machine that creates an enzyme. Now you CAN patent that. Since it is something completely different.

I don't know where you got your information but it's wrong. Corporations can only do what they get CONSENT for. They don't come in the middle of the night and steal your precious fluids. If you consent to have your blood patented, to bad you signed the waiver your right are gone. End of story. Again I caution people there is a lot of bad information out there about this issues and b/c there is no black-letter law yet states are all over the place.