YoungnerS. J.AndersonM. W. and SchapiroR., eds., Transplanting Human Tissue: Ethics, Policy, and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 14.
2.
Youngner, supra note 1.
3.
Youngner, supra note 1, at xiii.
4.
42 U.S.C. §§ 274 et seq. (1984).
5.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 106, 123.
6.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 8.
7.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 17.
8.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 29. Only four states (Maryland, New York, Florida, and California) have tissue bank regulations.
9.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 90.
10.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 97.
11.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 103.
12.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 107 Charo discusses a Ninth Circuit case that arose in the context of presumed consent statutes, under which individuals are presumed to be organ donors unless they specify otherwise. The court held that if a state statute appears to provide that relatives have property rights in the body of the deceased, then the state may not remove tissues without giving notice to the families that they have the right to refuse donation. Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2002), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1029 (2002).
13.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 133.
14.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 136.
15.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 140.
16.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 150.
17.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 154.
18.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 143.
19.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 143, 154.
20.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 164.
21.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 175.
22.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 183.
23.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 184.
24.
Youngner, supra note 1, at 186.
25.
TilneyN. L., Transplant: From Myth to Reality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).