# Possession "rights" of corpses

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possession-rights-of-corpses/646690>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [January 10, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possession-rights-of-corpses/646690 "2013-01-10T00:42:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possession-rights-of-corpses/646690/1 "2013-01-10T00:42:28Z")

</div>

This [vsauce video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6S5amkCoyc#t=8m25) makes the claim (at 8:25 after discussing various preservation techniques) that corpses are legally not property.

My google-fu is weak and I couldn’t find verification of this. I’m sure it varies by jurisdiction, but is it true, that a cadavre has special protection (or lack of protection) when it comes to property rights and ownership?

I know you can [purchase a skeleton](http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_family.php?id=236). What’s the difference (assuming there IS a difference)?

ETA: I just noticed a little after my linked-to clip there appear to be a few details re: legality. I’ll use that to see if I can answer my own question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possession-rights-of-corpses/646690/2 "2013-01-10T02:33:39Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> **American courts have been split between upholding the traditional rule that no property rights exist in cadavers, and a rule recognizing some form of property interest in a relative’s remains**. Cadaveric organs and tissues are an important source for modern transplant surgery and other biotechnologies, but there currently exists a tragic shortfall in supply. In Brotherton v. Cleveland, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that harvesting the corneas of an autopsy patient, pursuant to Ohio law, constituted a deprivation of an entitlement, or property right, which required due process protection.
> 
> Michael H. Scarmon, Brotherton v. Cleveland: Property Rights in the Human Body-Are the Goods Oft Interred with Their Bones?, 37 S.D.L. Rev. 429 (1992)

Brotherton can be read [here](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/923/477/127528/).