BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

which means that the consent of the deceased donor is presumed unless they have subscribed to a special register. 20 On a purely technical level, the consent is therefore not required. The key question arising here is whether, from a political and ethical perspective, it is appropriate that the consent to the donation of a tissue which is to be processed and sold falls within the scope of the regulation of the Transplantation Act. Otherwise, the collection of tissue would not be regulated by the Transplantation Act or Section 7 (1) c) 6 of the Act No. 296/2008 Coll., on human tissues and cells, but would rather fall within the scope of the general provision on body parts handling in Section 81 of the Act No. 372/2011 Coll. on health services. As a result, the consent would be necessary. 4. Doctrinal possibility of self-ownership The consensus on the impermissibility of commercialization of the human body can be reasonably considered universal. 21 It is generally recognized that the only permissible model of organ donation is a voluntary altruistic donation. Apart from the unanimous voice of international law, also the national legal systems of almost all world’s countries are in accordance with the principle: the trading of human kidneys is legal only in Iran. 22,23 However, this consensus is sometimes contested on the grounds of personal autonomy and empowerment of the poorest people. 24 In a legal sense, though, the debate goes down to the question of a private law approach to the human body. More specifically, there arises the question whether the human body ought to be a category sui generis or should be rather understood as a subject of person’s self-ownership. 25,26 20 The National Register of Persons Not Consenting To the Post-Mortem Tissue and Organ Donation. Website (in the Czech language) available at: http://www.nrod.cz//, accessed 9 December 2017. The numbers of registered persons are very low, partly for a generally positive approach of the Czech society towards transplantation and partly because of a very poor awareness of the organ donation regulation among the public. 21 See for example MASON, J. K., LAURIE, G. T., AZIZ, M.: Mason and McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics. 7 th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 489-490. 22 See BENGALI, S., MOSTAGHIM, R.: ‘Kidney for sale’: Iran has a legal market for the organs, but the system doesn’t always work, Los Angeles Times, 15 October 2017. http://www.latimes.com/world/ middleeast/la-fg-iran-kidney-20171015-story.html, accessed 9 December 2017. 23 However, several countries (for example Australia, Israel, Singapore or Saudi Arabia) offer a compensation (in some cases connected with other benefits) for the living organ donors provided by the government. See SICKAND,M., CUERDEN,M.S., KLARENBACH, S.W., OJO, A.O., PARIKH, C.R., BOUDVILLE, N., GARG, A.X.: Reimbursing Live Organ Donors for Incurred Non-Medical Expenses: A Global Perspective on Policies and Programs, American Journal of Transplantation, 2009, Vol. 9, No. 12, pp. 2825-2836. Also available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02829.x/full, accessed 11 December 2017. 24 See for example a harsh criticism of extra-commerciality of the human body in RADCLIFFE RICHARDS, J.: The Ethics of Transplants. Why Careless Thought Costs Lives. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 25 The concept of self-ownership is mainly connected with the libertarian school of thought. See for example its defence by one of the crucial libertarian philosophers, Robert Nozick: NOZICK, R.: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. 26 From the perspective of self-ownership, a person could be considered the owner of their own body with limited disposition of certain body parts. This limitation would be probably justified with reference to

205