Throughout this year of PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE with ABU GHRAIB and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY my earliest interpretation of what was happening with this illegal surveillance and 24/7 black market PORN I have thought of how to format that lawsuit as a LAWYER representing myself---PRO BONO but also encouraging other VICTIMS of HOSTING SERVER BARBER SURGEONS as NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG.
My case involves multiple crimes----RACKETEERING with WIRE/MAIL FRAUDS------black market organized crime around SEX TRADE AND PORN-----MEDICAL CRIMES against health institutions tied to advancing medical policies THAT NO ONE WANTS and doing it SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY. The other source is GLOBAL CORPORATIONS tied to manufacturing and PATENTING these DEVICES whether BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS-----or the TELEMEDICINE APARTMENT/HOUSE imaging and diagnostic devices.
Each kind of lawsuit involves different kinds of LAWYERS----different COURT SYSTEMS-----and looking for LAWYERS is very, very, very difficult as almost ALL US LAWYERS today work for global corporations and HATE PUBLIC JUSTICE/HUMAN RIGHTS.
We want to start by acknowledging these global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH tend to send in the FREEMASONRY/GREEK PLAYERS in all economic industries.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN A SCAM---THE LAW FIRMS RECEIVE THE BULK OF ANY CIVIL AWARDS AND THEY ALMOST NEVER SEEK CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND PRECEDENT.
We are not picking on any one family ---------many families have PLAYERS working for global 1% -----below we see ONE EXAMPLE========the GILREATH FAMILY TREE seems to have LOTS of DOCTORS----they have as well LOTS OF LAWYERS. If one family member is a BARBER SURGEON patenting and administering SICKO medical structures---LIKE BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS-----then another family relative may be that CLASS ACTION LAWYER.
BARBER SURGEONS ARE MAKING MILLION ON PREDATORY IMPLANT MEDICINE------CLASS ACTION LAWYERS WHO WAIT UNTIL THAT DEVICE CAUSES HARM----MAKES MILLIONS ON THAT HARM.
Does barber surgeon care if class action LAWYER makes million on MEDICAL LAWSUITS? NO------the millions have been made and the lawsuits go after the global corporations.
Below we see a CLASS ACTION LAW FIRM GILREATH doing IMPLANT CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS.
'Gilreath & Associates
Sid Gilreath has helped thousands of clients in Tennessee receive compensation for serious injuries. Learn more: SidGilreath.com
Hip Replacement Lawsuits
Litigation surrounding hip surgeries and implantsWritten by: Enjuris Editors'
Below we see a list of GILREATHS who may or may not be BARBER SURGEONS but work in the medical fields PROMOTING IMPLANT MEDICINE AND TELEMEDICINE. These DOCTORS KNOW implant medicine is causing GREAT HARM AND DEATH.
Tremendous SICKO results from patents over these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---now TRUMP.
'Dr. Lora Gilreath, MD - Reviews - Sugar Land, TX
Dr. Lora Gilreath, MD is a pediatrics specialist in Sugar Land, TX. She graduated from University Of Tennessee Health Science Center College Of Medicine and specializes in pediatrics'.
'About Dr. Catherine Gilreath, DO
Dr. Catherine Gilreath is a family medicine doctor in Fort Wayne, Indiana'.
'Dentist Burien, WA | Gilbreath Dental
Dental provides comprehensive dental care in Burien, WA. Dr. Gilbreath offers dental cleanings and exams, cosmetic dentistry, tooth replacement, and more'.
'Rodney Gilreath, MD | Henry Ford Health System - Detroit, MI
To obtain patient ratings and comments, we partner with Press Ganey, an independent patient satisfaction company that works with more than 26,000 healthcare organizations to improve the patient experience'.
'Dr. Paul Gilreath
Gilreath Dental Associates is located in Marietta, Georgia and serves patients in Marietta, Kennesaw, Smyrna, East Cobb County, West Cobb County and the surrounding areas. Dr. Paul Gilreath has significant experience in both placing dental implants and restoring dental implants. Our team is committed to exceeding the expectations of every patient, referral source and member of our community by delivering compassionate and comfortable surgical care of the highest quality and value'.
Meet Our Doctors - Dentist in Goose Creek, SCwww.goosecreekfamilydentistry.com/our-practice/...
Dr. Ryan Gilreath was born and raised in Greer, South Carolina. He attended undergraduate at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC, where he earned a Bachelor of Science in biology and a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish. In 2004, Dr. Gilreath was awarded the highest academic honor award, Phi Beta Kappa.
'Dr. Richard W. Gilreath DDS - Dentist in Mount Airy, NC ...www.caredash.com/doctors/richard-gilreath-dds...
Dr. Richard W. Gilreath DDS is a male dentist in Mount Airy, NC. Dr. Richard W. Gilreath DDS has an overall patient experience rating of 4.2/5.0. He is licensed to practice by the state board in North Carolina (6035). Dentists are doctors of oral health that treat and prevent diseases and ...'
'Dr. Paul Gilreath is a neurologist in Jasper, AL. He sees patients who have conditions of the nervous system, such as ALS or epilepsy'.
'Dr. Valerie S Gilreath - Family Practice, Glendale AZwww.healthcare4ppl.com/physician/arizona/... Dr. Valerie S Gilreath is a Family Practice Specialist in Glendale, Arizona. He graduated with honors from University Of Health Sciences / Chicago Medical School in 1973'.
Gilreath Chiropractic Health Center
Dr. Charles Gilreath
Contact UGilreath Chiropractic Health Center
1420 North Bridge St.
Elkin, NC 38621
Telephone: (336) 835-1517
Dr. Crystal Gilreath Rucker
Dr. Crystal Gilreath Rucker
Dr. Crystal Gilreath
Dr. Crystal Rucker
Dr. Crystal Rucker is so proud to be a native of Clarksville, TN. Her military family was stationed in the area when she was 4 years old. Growing up in Clarksville helped to cultivate her personal values of love for family, support for your country, and faith in God. This great city also instilled in Dr. Rucker the importance of education. Her journey to becoming a pediatric dentist was inspired by an educational program at Clarksville High School when she was only 15 years old.
'Tracy Lee Gilreath
Licensed Professional Counselor, , LPCS
Verified By Psychology Today
We all have times of suffering in our lives; it is difficult to walk through those times alone. Having gone through my own healing in counseling, and being a "wounded healer" aids me in being able to help others deal with their own suffering. I worked as a youth pastor for 16 years and in the mental health industry for the past 13 years with adolescents, children, and their families. I seek to help families that are having conflict in their home as well as those having school issues'.
Gilreath & Associates
Sid Gilreath has helped thousands of clients in Tennessee receive compensation for serious injuries. Learn more: SidGilreath.com
Hip Replacement Lawsuits
Litigation surrounding hip surgeries and implants
Written by: Enjuris Editors
If your hip replacement failed and you think it was because of the surgeon’s or manufacturer’s negligence, you might be eligible to join a lawsuit for product liability or file suit against the surgeon for medical malpractice. Many people find that a hip surgery lawsuit is the only way to recoup the high costs of revision surgeries, medications and treatments and make some amends for the loss of quality of life they are now facing. Learn what you need to know about lawsuits following hip surgeries.If you are having a hip replacement procedure, then you know that new hardware is involved. Technically, you’re going to become a little bionic. Part of your body will be removed by a surgeon and a foreign object will be implanted in its place.
Obviously, this might lead to some trepidation on your part. Is the device safe? Has it been market tested? What about the surgeon? Has anything ever gone wrong on his watch? Are there any hip replacement lawsuits against the manufacturer or surgeon?
Most of the time, everything goes according to plan. The damaged bone is removed, the implant replaces it, and you’re sewn up without issues. The implant lasts its usual lifetime of 15-ish years and then you go through the process again.
What if things go wrong?
Hip replacement lawsuits - background
A hip replacement is a procedure that removes damaged bone and replaces it with a metal, ceramic or plastic ball-in-socket joint. Bones that have been damaged by fractures, aging, arthritis and more can make normal activities difficult – dressing, walking, sitting and even sleeping.
When medications or changes to lifestyle fail (such as a cane, walker, exercise regimens, NSAIDs or other non-surgical methods), a hip replacement may be suggested by your medical professional.
Your surgeon will acquire an implant from a device manufacturer. Medical device companies are held to a higher standard, so a defective device lawsuit will not have to focus on the manufacturer’s intent – just whether there was an injury.
Enjuris tip: Is your faulty hip implant a medical malpractice case or a products defect case? Perhaps it’s both. Only a good lawyer can tell you.Manufacturers are responsible for creating a product that works in a safe way. They must warn end users about potential harms and provide accurate instructions. If they don’t, consumers can sue for everything from lost wages to the cost of additional surgeries. Sometimes products make it to market without having gone through appropriate FDA testing. This is called the 510(K) Premarket Notification Process. If a company has submitted a product to the FDA and has received approval to sell it, they can sell another substantially similar product that hasn’t been vetted yet. This is one major way that defects can go unnoticed by the public until it’s too late.
Sometimes, to preclude a wave of lawsuits, manufacturers will figure that out themselves and start a preemptive recall of defective devices.
Why do people go to court over hip implants?
It’s one thing to have a surgery for a painful condition and still experience pain afterward, despite the fixed condition.
Post-Accident Journal Form
Sample accident journal/diary to help you document the effect on your daily life
That’s not what hip surgery lawsuits are about.
The most common reasons for these surgeons and medical device manufacturers to get sued are complications, problems and after-effects caused by:
- Device loosening
- Metallosis (buildup of metal particles shedding from the device)
- Implant failed earlier than anticipated
- The device was marketed as safe when it was not
- Patient required additional surgeries that could have been avoided
- Device was not accompanied by adequate safety/implanting instructions
- Failure to warn
Defective products cases after hip surgery
There are many lawsuits for hip surgeries gone wrong. If you Google “hip replacement class action,” you’ll receive 352,000 results. What it comes down to is that hip replacement manufacturers have paid out $7.5 billion to injured patients since 2000. As of late 2017, there are approximately 13,000 hip surgery court cases pending across the United States.
There are 13,000 hip replacement lawsuits in the United States. Did your hip replacement fail?
There are many class action suits for this type of case.
Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a process that joins together at least two manufacturers and allows hundreds or even thousands of similar plaintiffs from different federal districts to move quickly through the courts. When there are so many plaintiffs whose complaints seem almost interchangeable, this keeps judges from having to hear and re-hear the same case over and over again. These are still in the early stages.
The FDA regulates the medical devices industry. It notifies medical professionals and the public at large when it becomes known that a hip replacement model should be avoided. Following is a list of manufacturers and their hip replacement device models which have been the subject of lawsuits or device failures that we know of:
- Depuy Orthopedics
- ASR XL
- Encore Orthopedics
- Zimmer Holdings
- Durom Cop
- Mayo Hip
- Wright Medical Technology
- Conserve Plus
- Profemur Z
- Metal Transcend
- Stryker Orthopedics
- ABG II
- Sulzer Inter-Op
- Trident Hemispherical SH
- Smith & Nephew
- Metal liner of R3
- IVS Tunneler
- Modular SMF
- Modular Redapt Femoral System
- TriGen Hip Nail
If your hip replacement failed, you might be eligible to join a lawsuit. Find out how.
The following companies have cases pending against them or paid out large awards for hip replacement settlements or lawsuits:
- Depuy’s Pinnacle lawsuit: A jury awarded $502 million to five plaintiffs in January 2016; another jury awarded $1 billion to six plaintiffs in December 2016; and a third jury awarded $247 million to six plaintiffs.
- Stryker’s LFIT V40 lawsuit: A federal panel combined six lawsuits in 2017 over Stryker’s femoral head into an MDL in Massachusetts federal court. This MDL contains more than 160 lawsuits. In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court combined all state court LFIT 40 lawsuits, which has 83 cases pending.
- Smith & Nephew’s BHR and R3 hip implant lawsuit: Maryland’s district court reported that there are 127 lawsuits pending in its MDL.
What qualifies as medical malpractice?
Let’s say your implant broke down. Okay. What do you need to do in order to start a case for damages?
You might immediately think this is medical malpractice, though a dual examination must be performed in this instance. Medical malpractice occurs when a licensed medical professional strays from what is considered to be the accepted standard of care in the field. But what about the device itself? (We’ll get there. Stay with us.)
If your surgeon, nurse, doctor, anesthesiologist or other health professional committed one of the acts listed below, you might have legal options:
- Conducted unneeded surgery
- Performed poor follow-up care
- Offered an incorrect diagnosis
- Discharged you early
- Misread or disregarded a critical lab result
- Failed to diagnose a condition
- Gave the wrong medication or dosage
If you think you might have a medical malpractice case, the first thing you need to do is prove negligence on the part of your health care provider. Also, remember that “health care provider” is a loose definition that can range from a doctor to a nurse to an anesthesiologist to a pharmaceutical company to an entire hospital.
In a hip replacement scenario, anyone from your surgeon to a discharge nurse could make a mistake. Was the surgery performed correctly? Did the implant break apart? Were too many pins put in, or not enough? Did the surgeon break your femur when shoving it back into the socket?
What is negligence?
Negligence is what victims must prove if they want to receive damages. There are four foundational elements that have to be established.
Let’s say you went to the doctor for hip replacement surgery, and the metal pieces that were implanted end up breaking and migrating within your body. There is a potential defective products case here, because the metal was faulty, did not stay where it was supposed to and did not do its job. If the surgeon had any idea that the implant was faulty or inserted it incorrectly, he might be liable for a medical malpractice case. That is why a dual examination should be performed – is this a medical malpractice case or a products defect case? Could it be both?
In terms of the medical malpractice case, you would need to show the following:
- Duty: Once the doctor/patient relationship was established, the surgeon owed you a duty of care. This duty required your surgeon to act like any other surgeon would in that situation, meaning he was required to follow accepted medical practices that are standard in the field.
In this instance, you went to your surgeon, submitted personal information so that you could be admitted, and received a surgical implant. This created the relationship and duty of care. The surgeon should act like any other doctor would in that situation.
- Breach: Once the duty of care is established, your surgeon must exercise reasonable care and follow common procedures.
Here, the duty was breached when the surgeon implanted a faulty device that ended up migrating.
- Injury: You must suffer an injury because of the surgeon’s actions.
Here, you definitely became injured. To win a medical malpractice suit, your attorney must prove that your surgeon directly caused your injuries. So was it the surgeon, or was it the device?
- Damages: Your lawyer must prove that you suffered economic and non-economic damages from the injury.
In this instance, you accumulated significant medical bills that would not have been there without the implant’s breakdown. You have further costs from missing work, traveling and lodging. You need additional surgeries to fix the implant. You have significant non-tangible costs, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
In terms of the defective products lawsuit, it could fall into one of three categories:
- Failure to warn: These are also called “marketing defects” and focus on the supply chain. The product was properly designed, but it was not accompanied by the correct instructions or warnings. This lack of warnings made the product unreasonably dangerous to its intended consumers.
- Design defects: Even if it was made flawlessly, it can still endanger the end user. A product can be considered unreasonably dangerous if it does not perform as safely as reasonably expected when a consumer uses it in its intended manner.
- Manufacturing defect: Even if the product were designed to be safe, the end result was not in harmony with that design. If that end product then causes an injury to its intended user, the manufacturer can be held responsible.
As long as the victim can prove the product was indeed defective, the manufacturer’s intent doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether someone can prove the product did not work as intended. Many hip implants were approved by the FDA only to later find that they were manufactured incorrectly or endangered the end user.
Starting a medical malpractice case or a defective products case for your hip surgeryEach state has its own local laws when it comes to medical malpractice and products liability. If your hip replacement broke down or was implanted incorrectly, you very likely have such a case.
Make sure to find out the relevant statute of limitations for your state. This is how much time you have to file a case. If you don’t file within that timeframe, you lose the ability to file.
Personal Injury Attorney Interview Sheet
Worksheet with questions to ask a personal injury attorney to help determine if he or she will be a good fit for your case
For medical malpractice, there are often pre-filing requirements, such as sending notice to the doctor in question and providing a letter from a certified medical professional that details how you were injured. If you don’t fulfil these requirements, you could also be barred from filing the actual lawsuit.
Finding the right attorney for your caseIt is very important to do a lot of research and choose an attorney with experience. These types of law are specialized and require a seasoned lawyer. This is because there is overlap between complicated medical and legal matters. There also are unique procedural issues that come up.
Consider checking out the Enjuris law firm directory to find the right lawyer for you.
Free personal injury guides for download to print or save. View all downloads.
Tell your story:
Tell your story - What would you want others to know? Tell us what happened in your accident, and how life has changed for you.
Find an attorney:
Search our directory for personal injury law firms.
See our guide Choosing a personal injury attorney.
On THE NETWORK we hear FEEDBACK that citizens in Baltimore harmed or killed by IMPLANT MEDICINE are going to do a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Now, that would not be bad IF--------the lawyer doing that class action lawsuit was doing it PRO-BONO and was doing it to set CRIMINAL PRECEDENCE not only CIVIL AWARDS in STOPPING MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE TELEMEDICINE FOR ALL.
GETTING TOGETHER FOR A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST IMPLANTS----GOOD THING.
GETTING TOGETHER FOR A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WITH A FAKE CIVIL RIGHTS/JUSTICE LAWYER PLAYER WORKING TO HELP CORPORATIONS SET PRECEDENCE AGAINST FUTURE LEGAL BATTLES FOR OUR 99%-------BAD THING.
This is what I hear IN FEEDBACK on THE NETWORK and I would be sad for those REALLY HARMED for this FAKE JUSTICE pursuit..
Please, look for and find A LAWYER who actually wants to give CIVIL JUSTICE----AND CRIMINAL PRECEDENCE.
This case against HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG is EASY PEASY-------lots of evidence ---easy to prove----so, not a whole lot of LAW FIRM HOURS needed in these cases.
In US today we have an uneven balance of AMBULANCE CHASING FAKE JUSTICE LAWYERS----as we do FAKE PHYSICIAN BARBER SURGEONS. Do the real deal to STOP MOVING FORWARD TRANSHUMANISM.
Surgically Implanted Medical Devices Injury Lawsuit
What Are Surgically Implanted Medical Devices?
Surgically implanted medical devices are man made devices or instruments that surgeons use to replace a missing biological structure inside a patient’s body.
Some examples of surgically implanted medical devices include:
- Cochlear Implants
- Breast implants
- Eye implants
- Transvaginal mesh
- Blood clot filters such as IVC filters
- Artificial joints, such as hip replacements and knee implants
What Are the Dangers Associated with Surgically Implanted Medical Devices?
There are many dangers and complications that are associated with surgical implanted medical devices that could lead to injury and even death. If a surgically implanted medical device is defective or is implanted in a wrong way it can cause major complications such as: inflammation, rejection of the implant, blood infection, and infections. Many cannot even recover from a defectively implanted medical device that can lead to long term or lifetime of injuries and body complications.
What is the Duty of Health Care Facilities when a Medical Device Malfunctions?
Under the Safe Medical Devices Act requires health care facilities to report to the manufacturers such as Stryker any injuries or illnesses in patients or employees caused by the use of the manufacturers’ medical devices such as an IVC filter. If a patient or employee happens to die as a result of the device being used, then the FDA should be contacted as well. This ensures that a manufacturer is aware of the defect.
Who Is Liable for a Surgical Implanted Medical Device Injury?
If a patient is injured because of a surgically implanted medical device, there may be several people who are liable for their injuries. Generally, that can include:
- Professional associates;
- Hospitals; or
- Manufacturers of surgically implanted medical devices.
The two most common defendants in a lawsuit involving a surgically implanted medical device are the surgeon who performed the operation and the manufacturer of the device.
1) Surgeon Liability
If the surgeon made a mistake during surgery, then the surgeon who performs the operation that implants a medical device is liable under a theory of medical malpractice or negligence. In order to be successful in a lawsuit against a surgeon, an injured patient has to prove:
- The surgeon owed them a duty in implanting a medical device,
- The surgeon did not meet the applicable standard of care when implanting the medical device, and
- The surgeon’s actions caused the injuries to the patient.
2) Manufacturer Liability
If the product itself was defective after it was planted, the manufacturer of a surgically implanted medical device can be liable to an injured patient under a theory of strict liability for a defective product.
As such, for an injured patient to be successful in a lawsuit against a manufacturer, they must show:
- The manufacturer engaged in the sale of surgically implanted medical devices;
- The surgically implanted medical device was in a defective condition which made it unreasonably dangerous;
- The manufacturer placed the surgically introduced the medical device into the marketplace in its defective condition; and
- The defective condition of the surgically implanted medical device was the cause of the patient’s injury.
What Are Class Action Lawsuits a Medical Device Injury?
Class action lawsuits, also known as mass tort lawsuits, is a lawsuit that includes hundreds or thousands of injured plaintiffs who were injured by the same device that was defective. Instead of each plaintiff bringing separate lawsuits against the medical device manufacturer, one large lawsuit is brought against the company and a single plaintiff represents all the plaintiffs that have a claim against the company. The compensation of the lawsuit is then equally divided among the plaintiffs injured or brought under the claim.
What Are the Defenses to a Medical Device Injury Lawsuit?
In a lawsuit against a surgeon or manufacturer for injuries associated with a surgically implanted medical device, several defenses exist. Common defenses include:
- Protection from the Medical Device Amendments of 1967 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
- Manufacturer was not engaged in the sale of surgically implanted medical devices
- The defect of the surgically implanted medical device was caused by an outside force
- The patient was negligent themselves and did not take the necessary precautions
If a surgeon or manufacturer is successfully sued for an injury associated with a surgically implanted medical device, and depending on the circumstances, a patient or their family can usually recover the following:
- Damages for physical and emotional pain and suffering
- Loss of earnings
- Loss of earning capacity
- Emotional distress or trauma
- Medical expenses, both present and future
- Wrongful death
- Loss of consortium
- Punitive damages
If you have been injured because of a surgically implanted medical device, it is highly recommended for you to contact an experienced personal injury attorney who specializes in medical malpractice. Only a lawyer will be able to thoroughly explain any issues, help defend your rights, and assist in getting you any compensation you deserve.
The second category of LAWYERS I hear on THE NETWORK are the GLOBAL CORPORATE LAWYERS pretending to want to HELP those 99% harmed by IMPLANTS ET AL------but, who actually work to promote CORPORATE LEGAL PRECEDENCE for those same corporations.
THE NETWORK says in FEEDBACK ----HE OWNS HER -------SHE NEEDS TO BE KEPT OUT OF PUBLIC INSTITIONALIZED BECAUSE SHE IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS TIED TO IMPLANT HER.
We indicated that global banking 1% have LEGAL PRODUCT MARKET applications via mainstream health economics---but, they also have BLACK MARKET TRADE in same products and it is the black market trade profits which are generally HIGHER than mainstream. So, black market HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG have HACKED and have a business model separate from mainstream BARBER SURGEONS tied to medical institutions.
EACH ARE WORKING FOR THE SAME GLOBAL BANKING 1% AND MEDICAL CORPORATIONS-----EACH ARE COMMITTING DIFFERENT CRIMES.
'Transhumanism is strongly implicated in this shift in the scope of one’s ‘personhood’. My own sense of identity may be tied to my having begun life as a member of Homo sapiens at a certain time and place'.
US CONGRESS is creating FAKE NEWS AND KABUKI THEATER over PERSONHOOD and TRANS RIGHTS -----all pretending to be civil rights for the 99% of WE THE TRANS-------not TRANSEXUAL----TRANSHUMAN. Congress and global banking via UNITED NATIONS and WORLD BANK/WORLD HEALTH as even created a CONSTITUTION surrounding the rights of global corporations to MAKE HUMANS INTO IMPLANTED MACHINES. It is not the right of HUMANS to fight and protect themselves against this---it is not the right of HUMANS to seek JUSTICE IN COURT when CAPTURED AND MADE IMPLANTED without consent or knowledge----
THESE CONSTITUTIONS FOR TRANSHUMANISM PROTECTS THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS INSTALLING IMPLANTS AND CONTROLLING THAT ONCE NATURAL HUMAN.
THE NETWORK with HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG want to make clear I am IMPLANTED---I am a MACHINE and they CONTROL ME.
'As I see it, Steve Fuller is arguably going to extents that some may deem controversial (e.g., his endorsement of some type of Intelligent Design, his backing up of transhumanism, his gradual “coming out” as a Catholic) due to one main reason: A deep preoccupation with the future of humanity vis-à-vis pervasively disrupting emerging technologies'.
GANGSTER HOSTING NOSY NEIGHBOR does not OWN ME------the institutions tied to IMPLANTING ME think they OWN ME. That would be those institutions tied to
ALL THOSE IMPLANT STUDIES-----ALL THOSE ROUTINE SURGERIES ENDING WITH UNKNOWN IMPLANTING.
There is NOT FUTURE OF CAPITALISM in TRANSHUMANISM------the goal of TRANSHUMANISM is far-right brutal GLOBAL CORPORATE MARXISM-----where only the .00014 of global 1% are involved in 'CAPITALISM'---NEO-LIBERALISM.
Transhumanism and the future of capitalism: The next meaning of life
Although there is no single definition of ‘transhumanism’, the term broadly relates to the idea that the human species should radically transform itself as it has the physical environment through the use of advanced technology. Steve Fuller writes on the link between transhumanism and capitalism, and elaborates on what it would mean to be a person in such a world.
Capitalism is not normally seen as an especially ‘humanistic’ ideology. Yet central to the legal innovations that enabled the rise of capitalism in the early modern West was a doctrine of the person as a being who is free to exchange goods and services. In the eighteenth century, this freedom was characterised as an ‘inalienable right’, which is to say, not transferable to another either by choice or under duress.
Thus, a strong normative distinction between people and property was institutionalised, which had not existed in slave or feudal societies. The sting of the Marxist critique of capitalism comes from observing that this distinction is not upheld in practice. Instead a supposedly inalienable right of the person becomes a site for exploitation, as asymmetrical power relations in the marketplace reduces human labour to inhuman capital inputs.
Transhumanism challenges the sense of humanity’s ontological stability shared by capitalists and socialists – which has rendered exploitation such a normatively charged issue in the modern era. To be sure, over the past 150 years the potential for exploitation has been mitigated by laws that circumscribe and regulate the role of work in life:
While one may need to sell one’s labour to make a living, the buyer doesn’t have unconditional control over the seller’s life. In this context, welfare state legislation has operated as a safeguard against the realisation of Marx’s worst fears.
However, whatever sense of humanism has been presumed by such policies is being gradually eroded by the information-based mode of production that characterises what Jean-Francois Lyotard originally called the ‘postmodern condition’. In particular, as computers mediate both the work and non-work aspects of life, many of the phenomenological markers that created distance between the ‘worlds’ of work and non-work are rapidly disappearing.
An obvious case in point is the idea of ‘working from home’. People who operate this way typically shift back and forth between performing work and non-work activities on screen in an open-ended and relatively unstructured day. Meanwhile, all the data registered in these activities are gathered by information providers (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon), who then analyse and consolidate them for resale to private and public sector clients.
Is this exploitation?
The answer is not so clear. The information providers offer a platform that is free at the point of use, enabling users to produce and consume data indefinitely. Of course, such platforms are the source of both intense frustration and endless satisfaction for users, but the phenomenology of these experiences is not necessarily what one might expect of people in a state of ‘exploitation’. On the contrary, there is reason to think that people increasingly locate ‘meaning’ in their lives in some cyber-projection (‘avatar’) of themselves, notwithstanding the third-party ownership of the platform hosting the cyber-projection.
Transhumanism is strongly implicated in this shift in the scope of one’s ‘personhood’.
My own sense of identity may be tied to my having begun life as a member of Homo sapiens at a certain time and place. But that is largely a modern narrative convention, which is tied to what John Locke originally dubbed a ‘forensic’ sense of the person, which is enshrined in modern law – namely, the physical source of an action for whose effects the source is then accountable. Of course, there is scope for this individual to both extend and transfer his or her powers. Thus, the modern period has witnessed an expansion in the remit of corporate law and inheritance law. However, transhumanism takes the process of ‘extending’ and ‘transferring’ the powers of the person to a new level.
On the one hand, in the case of extension, the person might incorporate genetically or prosthetically, with the intent of conferring new powers on the original physical individual, as opposed to simply merging the interests of that individual with those of other individuals in the sorts of business arrangements we normally call ‘corporations’. On the other hand, in the case of transfer, the person might do more than simply bequeath various assets to already existing individuals and institutions – say, in a will which comes into force upon one’s death. Rather, the person might in his or her own lifetime invest energy and income in support of virtual agents, ‘second lives’, with the effect of turning one’s physical self into a platform for launching the more meaningful cyber-selves.
The state of humanity in such a state of transhumanised capitalism – ‘Capitalism 2.0’, if you will – is one of morphological freedom, as transhumanists themselves put it: It is the freedom not only to do what you want but also to be what you want.
It is worth observing that this sense of freedom violates a key metaphysical assumption shared by liberals and socialists, namely, that humans are rough natural equals, not in the sense that everyone is naturally the same but that everyone has roughly the same mix of assets and liabilities, which in turn justifies a harmonious division of labour in society. The violation of this assumption implies that whatever problems of social justice relating to material inequality have emerged over the history of capitalism are potentially amplified by transhumanism, as the prospect of morphological freedom explodes stopgap liberal intuitions about the ‘natural equality’ of humans.
A reading course on what the ‘meaning of life’ might look like in such a world would do well to focus on the work of Robert Nozick and Derek Parfit, both of whom in somewhat different ways stretched philosophical thinking about the conditions for personal identity to capture the transhumanist prospects suggested above.
Steve Fuller recently gave a wide-ranging talk on ‘Transhumanism and the Future of Capitalism’ to the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Contemporary Philosophy of Technology, the video for which is here.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Michael Coghlan (CC BY-SA 2.0)
CORPORATE ARM OF LEGAL PRECEDENCE PRETENDING TO BE POPULIST WHILE MAKING THAT HUMAN WITH IMPLANTS OWNED BY SOURCE OF IMPLANTATION.
Below we see just that------CIVIL RIGHTS OF 21ST CENTURY as written by UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS AND CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY-----the right of global corporations to FORCE HUMANS to become IMPLANTED.
NO-------STEVE FULLER IS NOT RELIGIOUS---CATHOLIC----STEVE FULLER IS LIKELY AN ATHEIST OR SATANIST-----ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS HAVE STEVE FULLERS.
'Steve Fuller recently gave a wide-ranging talk on ‘Transhumanism
.........his endorsement of some type of Intelligent Design, his backing up of transhumanism, his gradual “coming out” as a Catholic) '
I have spoken over this year of 2019 and being HIT-----TURNED ON to the fact I was IMPLANTED and being illegal surveilled that the ACT OF BEING HIT has been happening these few decades and it is THE NORM today------someone in THE NETWORK can arbitrarily decide to HIT anyone else. Being HIT leads to being IMPLANTED and cascades into more and more IMPLANT applications. NOW, the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT is telling us EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE all tied to developing TELEMEDICINE AND IMPLANTS can be FORCED on a patient promoted by MEDICAL HEALTH INSURANCE procedure guidelines and payments.
'the Immortality Bus, whose mission is to spread radical science and promote transhumanist rights'.
THE IMMORTALITY BUS is an OXYMORON-------99% WE THE PEOPLE are heading for the degrading of longevity because of SICKO HARM FROM IMPLANTS. The HOSTING SERVER AND NOSY NEIGHBORS tied to MEDICAL IMPLANTS love to say -------
WE DO NOT IMPLANT 'US'---WE IMPLANT 'THEM'
Below we see the national FAKE NEWS headlines we have seen over these few decades ------LIFE EXPECTANCY IN DECLINE AND GETTING WORSE. Below that WORLD BANK says the opposite----30 years has brought higher life expectancy--
THAT WOULD BE FAKE NEW BUT WORLD BANK SAYS THAT TO JUSTIFY IMPLANTING PEOPLE.
Health & Science
U.S. life expectancy declines for the first time since 1993
By Lenny Bernstein
December 8, 2016
'at least in the last 30 years, according to the World Bank--that science and technology have been making lives longer and better for virtually everyone on the planet'.
HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS say------WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ALL HER MONEY AWAY TO INSTITUTIONALIZE HER.
Transhumanist Rights Are the Civil Rights of the 21st Century
On 4/30/16 at 6:01 AM EDT
Some transhumanists want to become new biological species, and others want to become machines.
Maitreya One, a black futurist and hip-hop artist living in Harlem, steps off the Greyhound bus on a warm morning in Montgomery, Alabama. Wearing sunglasses and a backwards-facing baseball hat, he eyes the film crew covering his arrival. I walk up to him and give him a hug. I'm excited he's here.
Maitreya is a civil rights link from the past to the future—and one of the few African-American transhumanists I know. He is stepping off one bus in Montgomery—whose roots are tied to the spectacular Freedom Riders who challenged segregation laws in the early 1960s—and onto another: the Immortality Bus, whose mission is to spread radical science and promote transhumanist rights.
Like others in the burgeoning transhumanism movement, Maitreya supports becoming a cyborg in the future, and he knows the coming controversy over such aims may end up as challenging as the civil rights era battles over racism.
To transhumanists--some who want to become new biological species and others who want to become machines—a new civil rights age is looming. We can already see the start of it with numerous calls for a research moratorium on human genome editing—a scientific feat that took place in China in 2015.
But there are many more difficult questions beyond directly modifying the biology of the human being. Should humans be able to marry robots? Should sophisticated artificial intelligences be given personhood? And are crimes committed in virtual reality punishable by jail time? The questions are endless.
Navigating the future of transhumanism is indeed thorny. And even though a lot has changed and improved in the 55 years since black and white Freedom Riders risked their lives—arriving in Alabama in buses to challenge Jim Crow segregation practices—bigotry, traditionalism, and closed-mindedness is alive and well. And this conservatism may hold us back.
"We need morphological freedom—the right to do with your body whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone," Maitreya says. "We need real policies of justice that serve everyone and do not discriminate against new ideas."
On the Immortality Bus, we head to downtown Montgomery to the Freedom Riders Greyhound station, which is now a museum. Outside are photos plastered to the building where white Southerners (some who belonged to the Ku Klux Klan) once attacked bus riders who wouldn't segregate on buses or in bus terminals.
I ask if Maitreya thinks the future of transhumanist civil rights might become as violent as this.
"I hope not," he answers. "I hope this was just a bad period of history in America. I can't even believe all this happened because white and black people wanted to sit next to one another. It's ridiculous."
I agree with him, but I'm skeptical whether future civil rights won't also have its share of violence as the world progresses forward. While my travels in the South as a pro-technology and non-religious U.S. presidential candidate have been met with kindness and curiosity, it's also been easy to quickly turn off people.
As soon as I tell people I have a chip implant in my hand, opinions of my campaign seem to quickly change. Religious people dislike any type of technology that brings ups questions of Revelations in the Bible or the Mark of the Beast. Implants, a classic transhumanist technology, seems to provoke just those exact ideas.
Maitreya One inside the Freedom Rides Museum. Roen Horn
Unfortunately, everything transhumanists are trying to accomplish—from conquering death with science, to merging with machines, to becoming as powerful as possible via technology—conflict somewhat with biblical scripture and conservatism. The word transhuman means "beyond human" and that's what most transhumanists are striving towards. Naturally, that is going to rub the wrong way on many people who believe in the sanctity of the natural human body and traditional human experience.
Like any new potentially society-changing movement, transhumanism has its work cut out for it with future civil rights. The concept of personhood used to be a simple one, but with artificial intelligence and robots that can already nanny our children and cook dinners, we will soon see a time when courts must decide how far to take these ideas.
For example, if an intelligent robot makes money, should it be taxed? Or will all robots fall under a nonprofit entity status? Robots like this will likely arrive in households and the workforce before 2025, so we're not talking some distance future, but something only years away.
In the biology realm, the issues are already here. Cloning is banned in many states. And stem cells derived from fetuses—a classic transhumanist pursuit—is frowned upon by many.
Cryonics is illegal in some places in the world. The LGBT movement—which many transhumanists strongly support—will also be affected as gender reassignment surgery becomes an easy procedure. Many transhumanists, including myself, believe we'll eventually arrive to a genderless world, made possible via science. Perhaps even more controversial, artificial wombs will challenge maternity, and also upturn abortion clashes. All this, besides the fact that men will soon be able to have babies themselves with uterus transplant surgery.
The coming conflict of advancing technology vs. human rights is a massive one. Already, we've seen some initial banning of Google Glass in public places, which I suspect made Google not push hard for the success of that product. Additionally, the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) recently reaffirmed its ban on gene editing of embryos. And laws of virtual persons are being discussed and applied to Second Life and similar places.
Easily, the biggest transhumanist issue in the future is robots taking jobs. Even South Korea has already replaced some prison guards with robotic guards. And some hotels now use robots, as well as Lowes, the home improvement giant. All these issues fall under the umbrella of transhumanist civil rights—and nothing in the young field is simple or for certain.
Some anti-tech naysayers and luddites are screaming to slow down technology before it gets out of control. Others, like myself, believe technology will only help the planet. History shows--at least in the last 30 years, according to the World Bank--that science and technology have been making lives longer and better for virtually everyone on the planet.
Despite my optimism, I still understand the need to tread carefully. We are in new territory, and endless amounts of discussion must reach the highest levels to find the best path. Unfortunately, even during the 2016 presidential cycle, virtually no politicians are discussing some of the most pertinent issues at hand, like designer babies, or A.I. controlling nuclear arms, or whether 3D printing of guns and bombs is legal and should be encouraged.
As a transhumanist U.S. presidential candidate, these issues are my main focus. In fact, the main goal of the Immortality Bus is to spread a newly written Transhumanist Bill of Rights that covers many of these issues. But as a third party candidate with virtually no chance of winning, much of it falls on closed ears.
It's my hope, though, that through the music of people like Maitreya One or other initiatives of transhumanists, that more and more people will start to discuss the future—before it arrives and slams into us. That way, we might be able to avoid confrontation by understanding the possibilities before the next new civil rights battles emerge.
Zoltan Istvan is a futurist and 2016 U.S. presidential candidate of the Transhumanist Party. His essays have appeared in NationalGeographic.com, Vice, Slate, TechCrunch and many other publications.
What I am hearing on THE NETWORK from HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AS BARBER SURGEONS is this:
WE HAVE MADE BILLIONS SELLING 'HER' -----
This can mean a few things---they have sold me as PORN----they have sold me as 24/7 ILLEGAL STREAMING VIDEO to corporations-----
This can mean they are selling MY MEDICAL DATA----MY ACTUAL BODY VIA BLOOD SAMPLES for DNA-----
This can mean someone going for a GYN who is implanted can have STEM CELLS harvested without the patient knowing.
I feel pretty sure almost all of the above has occurred in my case.
Does the LAB TESTING corporation have a right to SELL that BLOOD SAMPLE after using only a SMALL AMOUNT -----someone may have requested that DNA.
'However, for others, the consequences of being unable to own your body, parts of it or its products can lead to very undesirable results'.
The article below deals with OWNERSHIP of EGG AND SPERM and came about during FERTILITY CLINICS AND BANKS where a DONOR gives up those rights to ownership of BODY PART---that egg or sperm.
We had over these few decades legal precedence of NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES reclaiming the SKELETONS of discovered remnents from museums and medical institutions---courts said families have rights to claim family remains.
What HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG are being paid to do for global banking 1% is to END any legal standing of HUMANS HAVING PROPERTY RIGHTS to their own bodies. This is why NOSY NEIGHBORS always say----SHE IS A SLAVE ---WE OWN HER. This is why CORPORATE LAWYERS would want to take MY CASE to court and LOSE-----setting precedence against MY RIGHTS TO OWN MY OWN BODY AND PARTS.
TODAY, SETTING PRECEDENCE FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO OWN A HUMAN MADE TRANSHUMAN IS MOVING FORWARD AS FAST AS HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG CAN MAKE IT SOUND AS THOUGH SLAVERY IS BACK IN US.
The fastest way for global corporations tied to making our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE completely TRANSHUMAN is to bring back
SLAVERY------THOSE GLOBAL CORPORATION OWN US---WE ARE CHATTEL.
DARK AGES said NO WAY ---you don't have any rights to your body----but 300 years of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN---especially this past century gave TONS of legal precedents saying WE DO HAVE RIGHTS TO OUR BODY AND PARTS.
Property Rights in the Human Body
Published by belawyer at July 12, 2013
Do you own your own body?
A question you may never have considered as the obvious answer would be:
‘yes, of course I do.’
Well, in law, the position is counter-intuitive. The default rule is that there are no property rights in the human body; this is well established in the law of the UK and further afield. Most people live quite happily without ever having to consider the implications of this. However, for others, the consequences of being unable to own your body, parts of it or its products can lead to very undesirable results.
Do you own your own body?
A question you may never have considered as the obvious answer would be:
‘yes, of course I do.’
The human body is subject to constant and increasingly complex developments in science and medicine. These bring with them new questions of law and the courts can find themselves confronted with the task deciding how to handle new medical developments.
Do they continue to apply the same body of rules that were founded decades before doctors performed the first successful organ transplant?
Or do they adapt the regime to better cater for the realities of modern day medicine and technology?
Reproductive technology has undergone very significant developments with the ever increasing capability of science to overcome a couple or an individual’s inability to conceive naturally. One recent leap forward in this field is the development of three-person IVF, which allows scientists to create an embryo from the cells of three people. An embryo used in any IVF process exists in vitro, meaning it is formed outside of the body and can be kept for a specific period of time, which is defined by statute.
Because of its independent existence, legal questions have arisen regarding control of an embryo and its usage rights, which would normally belong to the person who owned it.
However, because such ownership is prohibited, the law has sidestepped the need to deal with the question of property and, instead, has dealt with embryos and their use under the umbrella of consent.
THE ISSUES OF IMPLANTING ARE ALSO TIED TO CONSENT-----THAT CONSENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE OWNERSHIP OF ONE'S OWN BODY.
This article considers whether the current framework of consent is satisfactory or whether it is preferable to extend the law of property to parts of the human body and, specifically, to reproductive material. However, it is first necessary to consider the existing legal landscape regarding the status of the human body.
The current state of the law
The question of what legal interests a person might have in their own body can arise in a multitude of different situations, in addition to those in the sphere of reproduction. For example, when considering whether it is possible to sell parts of one’s own body or whether research institutions can be granted intellectual property rights over cells and DNA.
The law in the UK, and in other jurisdictions, has not developed a consistent approach to establishing the legal status of the human body. The general prohibition against property rights in the human body originated in the context of corpses, but was extended over the centuries. Cases such as R v Bentham  1 WLR 1057 confirm living bodies are also included. In this peculiar case, the defendant committed a robbery giving the impression that his hand, which was concealed in his jacket, was a gun. He was charged with possession of an imitation firearm, but because he could not be said to be in possession of a part of his own body, the conviction was overturned by the House of Lords.
The law in the UK…has not developed a consistent approach to establishing the legal status of the human body
An exception to this rigid prohibition emerged at the turn of the nineteenth century with the Australian case of Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 496. This concerned a dispute over a two-headed foetus, which had been preserved and bought for an exhibition. The court held that it could be distinguished from a corpse because of the lawful exercise of work and skill that had been rendered to the foetus in order to preserve it. This allowed a property right to vest in the person who performed the procedure and it entitled them to keep the material in their possession.
This rule was confirmed in R v Kelly  2 WLR 384 where it was held that parts of a human corpse could be property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968 if they had acquired different attributes by the process of preservation or dissection.
As science and medicine have developed, so too has the breadth of this exception and cases concerning intellectual property rights over the human body are illustrative of the unsatisfactory predicament that the law finds itself in. In the American case of Moore v Regents of the University of California 793 P 2d 479 (Cal 1990), Mr Moore was a sufferer of the rare hairy cell leukaemia and he brought an action against researchers from a university who had taken a sample of cells from his spleen and, from this, had created the MO cell line (aptly named after Mr Moore).
They obtained a patent over the MO cell line, which they sold to a drug company for $15,000,000. Mr Moore claimed his property had been converted and, therefore, he was entitled to a share of the proceeds. However, it was held that Mr Moore’s spleen was not his property so, while he could claim for breach of fiduciary duty and a lack of informed consent, he could not claim for the consequences of the conversion. It was the researchers who were held to own the cell line over which they had been granted a patent because of their application of skill to Mr Moore’s original cells.
So to summarise so far, the law has us in the following rather unsatisfactory situation: I do not have a property right in my own body, but another person has the ability to generate a property right in products from my body.
One of the primary arguments for not allowing ownership of the human body is the risk of exploitation. That is, by recognising such a right we may find ourselves on the slippery slope back to slavery and other such sordid practices from our past that we would rather forget. There is a problem with this argument though. We are left in a position where we cannot exploit ourselves. So, I cannot sell my organs to bring myself out of poverty, for example, but others can exploit me by making parts of my body their own (and in some cases, make a fortune out of doing so!).
Such was the position until the case of Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust  3 WLR 118 where the Court of Appeal recognised a property right belonging to the claimants over their own sperm. This is clearly a leap forward towards embracing a property-based model, although its value is debatable. We will return to this case more fully after examining the particular legal position of embryos.
An embryo is unique in that it is not a product of the human body, but a product of two people’s bodies and now, possibly three.
An embryo is formed when the male sperm cell and female egg cell fuse together during fertilisation. In a normal IVF procedure, the embryo is created in vitro (outside of the body) and is then transplanted into the woman, but recent advances in science have paved the way for a third person to be included in the process.
Mitochondria are organelles found inside cells which generate its supply of energy and control its metabolism. Abnormalities with the mitochondria can cause a range of diseases and conditions as a result of the body’s cells being unable to function properly. Mitochondria are contained in the mother’s egg cell, not the father’s sperm, so to prevent a woman passing on her defective mitochondria to her baby, scientists have developed methods to transfer her genetic material into a healthy donor egg.
Under the current law, an embryo falls under the regulation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HEFA) as amended by HEFA 2008 and, as mentioned previously, this legislation deals with the control and use of the embryos under the umbrella of consent rather than property. Schedule 3 of the Act sets out the requirements of valid consent that each party contributing gametes to the embryo must give for its use and storage.
Is an embryo close enough in nature to gametes that it could be extended to recognising a property right over an embryo?
The consent based system effectively gives each party a veto over the use of the embryo, but does not give them a positive right to dictate the terms of its use. While it appears to neatly sidestep the need to address the question of ownership, the case of Evans and others v Amicus Healthcare  EWHC 261 demonstrates how a system based on mutual consent between parties is less than satisfactory because it opens itself up to stalemate should any conflict arise.
Ms Evans intended to undergo IVF treatment with her partner, but while the embryos were in storage, the couple separated and her partner withdrew his consent to the storage and use of the embryos. The Court of Appeal rejected Ms Evans’ application for an injunction that required her partner to restore his consent to storage and use so she could lawfully have the embryos transferred.
The consent originally given referred to treatment of the patients ‘together’ with a partner and it was held that such treatment was not possible with consent from one party only. Ms Evans continued to fight her case up to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, with the argument that the UK legislation violated her Article 8, 12 and 14 Convention rights, but these arguments also failed.
This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation for three key reasons: the woman wishing to be pregnant has been denied her chance of motherhood, the embryos have been destroyed and a considerable amount of money has been wasted. These risks would arguably only be intensified by the involvement of a third party, but this problem could be mitigated if the law gave one party a right to control the embryo. Consequently, it would also afford greater protection to an embryo, which is a important argument for those who believe that they ought to be considered a human life.
So would the Yearworth decision be able to help here?
Is an embryo close enough in nature to gametes that it could be extended to recognising a property right over an embryo?
The Yearworth decision and its legacy
In this case, six men who had been diagnosed with cancer were advised that their fertility would likely be affected during the chemotherapy treatment they were due to undertake and the hospital offered to freeze samples of their sperm for use at a later date. Each man had their sperm stored in this way for an agreed ten year period. However, before it could be used, the freezer broke down and the samples were destroyed.
The men brought three arguments before the Court of Appeal. First, that they suffered personal injuries caused by negligence on the part of the hospital. Second, that they suffered damage to property because of negligence. Third, that they suffered loss resulting from the hospital’s breach of bailment conditions. The hospital contended that while they had owed a duty to take reasonable care of the sperm and had failed to do so, they were not liable because the claimants could not recover for either personal injury or damage to property in negligence because the destruction of the sperm was not damage to their ‘person’.
The court rejected the claimant’s personal injury argument, but did allow the other grounds of appeal holding that the men did have ownership of their own sperm and could therefore sue the hospital for damages for their negligent destruction of it.
This decision is positive for the primary reason that it recognises that parts of the human body may be subject to property rights outside of the Doodeward exception of the application of labour or skill. However, the decision does not definitively pave the way for a more general extension of property rights in the human body.
Additionally, legal recognition of ownership over embryos would require a decision on who the ownership right would belong to.
Yearworth has been criticised for jumping to find a property right over the sperm without identifying an underlying principle upon which this right is founded. Without a firm justification for finding the property right, the court took something of a leap into the unknown and this lacking foundation arguably makes Yearworth an undesirable precedent. Importantly, we are left wondering whether the property paradigm has been extended to gametes only or whether it can rolled out to other reproductive bodily materials or more widely to non-reproductive organs and tissues.
Additionally, legal recognition of ownership over embryos would require a decision on who the ownership right would belong to. There is justification for it vesting it in the woman undergoing treatment because of the fact that the reproductive process is not as burdensome on a man as it is on a woman. Biologically, a man’s role is limited to the act of fertilisation and from that moment onwards, the woman bears the burden of gestation through to labour and child birth. Conferring ownership of the embryo to the woman could go some way to address this imbalance.
To conclude, the legal status of the human body and its parts and products is less than ideal. While in some ways the Yearworth decision was a step in the right direction in terms of recognising property rights in the body, the gaps left by the Court of Appeal have denied us a clear authority on which to base a doctrinal change in the body’s legal status.
Yet the existing uncertainties and contradictions inherent in the current legal landscape are in need of clarification and change. The time may not be right yet and perhaps the courts alone should not be faced with the burden, but as science and medicine continue to progress the law must ensure that it is able to progress with them.
 For a full account of this case and judicial treatment of it in America, see Radhika Rao, ‘Genes and Spleens: Property, Contract, or Privacy Rights in the Human Body?’ American Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 341 (Fall 2007)
 For a full account of this argument, see Shawn H.E Harmon and Graeme T. Laurie, ‘Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust: Property, Principles, Precedents and Paradigms’ Cambridge Law Journal 69 (3) 2010