• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The UCLA Willed Body Program has been suspended for almost a year as litigation and recommendations for reform proceed steadily.

Permission to reinstate the program may be requested this summer.

“We’re pleased and we’re in no hurry,” said UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale in a Feb. 25 interview with the Bruin, referring to the proposed reforms. “It’s more important to get it right than get the willed body program functioning again.”

UCLA’s program, established in 1950, was the first of its kind. Willed body programs now exist across the country to receive donated cadavers for the purpose of medical education and research.

A lawsuit was brought against UCLA in March 2004 when the program’s director, Henry Reid, was arrested and charged with selling body parts for personal gain.

The scandal received international press.

“The media attention on this case was astounding,” said Mike Eyerly, a lawyer who has been involved in several willed body suits against UCLA since 1996.

“That was a really good thing because willed body programs throughout the country kind of exist in the dark – there’s not a lot of transparency.”

This lawsuit is only the most recent of three suits being handled by the law offices of Mike Arias and Raymond Boucher. The 1996 suit was filed against the UCLA program for improper handling of cadaveric material after human ashes were found in a medical waste container in the Santa Monica Bay.

A December 2004 report, developed by the Navigant Counsulting, Inc. and requested by the UC Regents, outlined UC-wide standards for the use of cadaveric materials in willed body programs.

Some of the recommendations include stricter employee background checks and heavier oversight.

The UCLA program is currently overseen by Allen Nissenson, director of the division of nephrology in the UCLA Medical School.

Nissenson wrote in an e-mail that he could not provide information on legal proceedings, and referred questions to university lawyers.

Carnesale has stated the university is in full agreement with Navigant’s recommendations.

Though they were interviewed by Navigant about possible reforms, lawyers involved in the case say they did not feel that they had enough involvement in the drafting of the report.

“I felt that it should have been more of a collaborative effort between our offices on behalf of the family members so that everything proposed to the regents would be from all concerned parties,” said Arias, who has been involved in the willed body suits since the first one in 1996.

“I was somewhat disenchanted by the lack of involvement in the final drafting,” Arias added.

A status conference for the 2004 suit was held before a court Thursday in order to review evidence produced in the criminal investigation and to take steps toward a class action.

In the proceedings, UCLA has said that no state or federal law explicitly prohibits the sale or reallocation of body parts.

“Taken in a vacuum, that statement very well may be true, but our suit doesn’t involve a vacuum,” Eyerly said. “The plaintiffs and the family members we represent are suing because they were told by UCLA that the bodies would be used for medical research and education, and that nobody else would have access to those bodies.”

The relatively new industry of body donation is one that has few regulations and laws governing it.

“People don’t give them much thought until something like this happens,” Eyerly said. “There’s a huge black market for body parts and there’s a huge need for body parts.”

Due to lack of precedence and penal codes, criminal charges against Henry Reid were dropped last year, though future charges are expected, Eyerly said.

The current litigation against the UCLA Willed Body Program will set precedence and reform procedures.

“Once these new programs are put into place it truly will be a model program,” Arias said.

“My hope is what’s happening here and this litigation will set a standard of practice and will be adopted by willed body programs throughout the country.”

The 1996 lawsuit regarding the improper treatment and disposal of cadaveric material is currently waiting certification as a class action, representing the individual complaints of thousands of families.

A second case was filed in 1998, not seeking monetary damages, but an injunction to ensure proper management of the UCLA program.

Eyerly said he expects that this case may be resolved in the next six months.

The misconduct of the willed body program has affected families who have participated in the program since 1972. Relief and damages have yet to come through litigation.

“A lot of folks have taken this really hard,” Eyerly said. “A lot of family members feel really betrayed.”

Families have contributed to recommendations on what they would like to see in the willed body program, and have also stayed involved in the legal proceedings.

“Litigation-wise, it sounds like we are in this thing for the long haul,” Eyerly said.