Property in body parts and products of the human body

An intriguing question, which until recently had not been directly explored by the courts, is the extent to which English law recognises body parts and products of the human body as property capable of ownership. Although the common law currently recognises no general property in a dead body (and only limited possessory rights in respect of it), this apparent “no-property rule” provides no justification, it is submitted, for denying proprietary status to parts or products of a living human body. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust ([2009] EWCA Civ 37) lends strong support to the view that genetic material (as the product of a living human body) is capable of ownership, at least in the context of a claim in the tort of negligence and bailment. This article examines the various issues by reference to both English and Commonwealth authority.

Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects

Research on Processing Instruction has so far investigated the primary effects of Processing Instruction. In this book, the results of a series of experimental studies investigating possible secondary and cumulative effects of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of French, Italian and English as a second language will be presented. The results of the three experiments have demonstrated that Processing Instruction not only provides learners the direct or primary benefit of learning to process and produce the morphological form on which they received instruction, but also a secondary benefit in that they transferred that training to processing and producing another morphological form on which they had received no instruction.

Twentieth Century Society Spring lecture series: second lives for Twentieth Century masterpieces

The Twentieth Century Society’s Spring lecture series (six in total) looks at the restoration and refurbishment of key C20 buildings in Britain and the US. Buildings covered: BBC Broadcasting House in London (G Val Meyer 1930-32, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard 2000-09). Speaker: Mark Hines (Mark Hines Architects), was the project architect and is the author of The Story of Broadcasting House: Home of the BBC. 5 February 2009. Crown Hall, Chicago (Mies van der Rohe 1952), the Art and Architecture Building, Yale University, New Haven (Paul Rudolf 1961-63) and the former Wills head office in Bristol (SOM with YRM 1970-75). Speaker: Patrick Bellew (Atelier 10 Engineers), 12 February 2009. Center for British Art, Yale University, New Haven (Louis Kahn 1969-77). Speaker: Peter Inskip (Inskip and Jenkins Architects), 17 February 2009. Brunswick Centre London (Patrick Hodgkinson 1967-72; Levitt Bernstein with Patrick Hodgkinson 2006). Speaker: Stuart Tappin (Stand Consulting Engineers Ltd), 26 February 2009. De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill-on-Sea (Mendelsohn and Chermayeff 1934-5, John McAslan and Partners 2000-05). Speaker: Mark Cannata (HOK Architects), 5 March 2009. Finsbury Health Centre London (Lubetkin & Tecton 1938, first phase of conservation work Avanti Architects 1995.). Speaker: John Allan of Avanti Architects, 12 March 2009.

Legal myth-making: Medea and the legal representation of the feminine ‘other'

The Law operates by, and through, the creation of ideal benchmarks of conduct that are deemed to be representative of the behavioural norm. It is in this sense that it could be contended that the Law utilises, and relies on, myths in the same way as do other disciplines, notably psycho-analysis. It is possible to go even further and argue that the use of a created narrative mythology is essential to the establishment of a defined legal benchmark of behaviour by which the female defendant is assessed, judged and punished. While mythology expresses and symbolizes cultural and political behaviour, it is the Law that embodies and prescribes punitive sanctions. This element represents a powerful literary strand in classical mythology. This may be seen, for instance, in Antigone’s appeal to the Law as justification for her conduct, as much as in Medea’s challenge to the Law though her desire for vengeance. Despite its image of neutral, objective rationality, the Law, in creating and sustaining the ideals of legally-sanctioned conduct, engages in the same literary processes of imagination, reason and emotion that are central to the creation and re-creation of myth. The (re-)presentation of the Medea myth in literature (especially in theatre) and in art, finds its echo in the theatre of the courtroom where wronged women who have refused to passively accept their place, have instead responded with violence. Consequently, the Medea myth, in its depiction of the (un)feminine, serves as a template for the Law’s judgment of ‘conventional’ feminine conduct in the roles of wife and mother. Medea is an image of deviant femininity, as is Lady Macbeth and the countless other un-feminine literary and mythological women who challenge the power of the dominant culture and its ally, the Law. These women stand opposed to the other dominant theme of both literature and Law: the conformist woman, the passive dupe, who are victims of male oppression – women such as Ariadne of Naxos and Tess of the D’Ubervilles – and who are subsequently consumed by the Law, much as Semele is consumed by the fire of Jupiter’s gaze upon her. All of these women, the former as well as the latter, have their real-life counterparts in the pages of the Law Reports. As Fox puts it, “these women have come to bear the weight of the cultural stereotypes and preconceptions about women who kill.”