Ruth Waters died in 2001 and donated her body to the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine for research.
Later that year, Waters’ torso was allegedly sold to an outside research company without consent.
In 2004, Waters’ children sued the University of California, claiming that their mother’s remains were mishandled and not properly disposed of. After years of litigation, a California court of appeals has ruled in favor of the UC.
The decision follows a 2009 California Supreme Court case, Conroy v. Regents of University of California, which ruled that the university has the right to decide how a donor’s remains are disposed of.
The appeals court found that by donating her body, Ruth Waters gave UCLA the right to use it for teaching, research or other such purposes that the university deems advisable.
“That document of gift contained no provision regarding disposition of her body or remains, and representations made by the UCLA Willed Body Program to plaintiffs did not create additional duties owed to them,” the judge’s opinion stated.
The Waters case has been speculated to have ties to a controversy involving the sale of illegal, black market body parts that were donated to UCLA. The scandal came to light in 2004, and then-director of the Willed Body Program Henry Reid was convicted of stealing and selling body parts between 1999 and 2004 for personal profit, according to Daily Bruin archives.
There was no evidence that the university knew about or condoned Reid’s criminal acts, said Louis Marlin, part of the Regents’ counsel, who added that UCLA was a victim in the case.
Marlin said there is no evidence that Waters’ remains were sold or handled improperly by UCLA. He could not say, however, what did happen to her donated body.
For years, UCLA has lawfully sold and transferred anatomical and cadaveric materials to outside medical research companies for the advancement of science, Marlin said.
Laws hold that the university is allowed only to recoup the administrative costs associated with the transport, preparation, storage and cremation of the donated cadavers. The university covers these costs, similar to a funeral home, as thanks for the donation, said Dean Fisher, director of the UCLA Donated Body Program.
Making a profit on the cadavers, however, is illegal.
After one to three years undergoing research at the university, the remains of donated bodies are cremated and scattered across an El Toro Memorial Park rose garden in Lake Forest, Calif., according to a document provided to donors and families of donors from the program. Family members are not notified of the body’s cremation, and remains are not usually returned unless prior arrangements with the Willed Body Program office are made.
According to Michael Eyerly, the Waters’ attorney, Ruth Waters’ children had expected to be notified before Waters was cremated, but were told the body was still being used for research, even after it had been cremated.
The court stated that, according to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Waters’ children did not have the right to alter the terms of the donor’s written agreement because her donation was irrevocable after death.
Marlin said this holds true to cases outside the university as well. It is required, under law, to follow the directives of any deceased person who made them, even if the family disagrees.
The opposing counsel argued that the donor’s original intent had been violated because her body was removed from UCLA, Eyerly said.
Marlin said Waters’ document of gift made no such provision.
If UCLA had accepted a donation with additional restrictions attached, then it would be its duty to comply with them and presumably would be the family’s right to enforce them if they were not met, said UCLA law Professor Susan French. The Waters case emphasized that there were no restrictions imposed by Ruth Waters on the use of her cadaver, she said, therefore giving the university the final say.
Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey, one of three justices who heard the case, dissented, arguing that the plaintiffs would suffer severe emotional distress upon learning that their mother’s donated body was not used and disposed of according to the manner represented to them by the university.
“The moral blame of making such inaccurate representations or failing to ensure that the donated body was used and disposed as represented is substantial,” he wrote. “The imposition of a duty of care would discourage similar misconduct in the future and therefore would further the policy of preventing future harm.”
Eyerly said the next step is to file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, although he said very few cases are selected for review.
“It’s hard to believe the former director (Reid) went to jail, yet there’s no civil action for the wrongs,” he said.