Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fundamentals of management case study
Fundamentals of management case study
The doctrine of informed consent
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fundamentals of management case study
• The plaintiff is John Moore, who underwent treatment for hairy cell leukemia at the Medical Center of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA Medical Center).
• The five defendants are: (1) Dr. David W. Golde, a physician, who attended Moore at UCLA Medical Center; (2) the Regents of the University of California (Regents) 3) Shirley G. Quan, a researcher employed by the Regents; (4) Genetics Institute and (5) Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation and related entities (Sandoz).
• October 8, 1976, Golde recommended that Moore's spleen be removed.
• Upon removal for Plaintiff’s spleen as part of the treatment for his leukemia, defendant, physicians and medical center discovered Plaintiff’s cells were rare. The rareness of Plaintiff’s
…show more content…
Over this period of years, his doctor removed blood and other bodily fluids.
• August of 1979, Defendant Golde used Plaintiff’s cells to create a cell line and made profit from it.
• Soon after, on January 30, 1981, Defendant, Regents of University of California applied for a patent on cell line and listed Golde and Quan as the inventors.
• On March 20, 1984, the patent was issued. Defendants Golde and Quan were named as the inventors and Defendant, Regents, were named as assignee.
• Genetics and Sandoz were added due to their successive investments in the cell line
• Plaintiff (Moore) sues for breach of fiduciary duty due to the Defendants omission of their interest financially with Plaintiff’s cells. Plaintiff sues for lack of informed consent and for conversion.
Procedural History:
Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Court of Appeals reversed it. California Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals
Issue:
• Whether Plaintiff had ownership in the removed cells such that he could file suit for conversion
• Whether Plaintiff has stated a cause of action against his physician and other defendants for using his cells for medical research without his permission
Facts of the Case: Darleen Suggs started working and helped maintain the produce business with the decedent, Junior Earl Norris, from 1973 until his death in 1983. During this time and according to several witnesses, the plaintiff did most of the farm work, as well as drive to markets 60 miles away, without aid of the decedent. She also handled all finances and deposited them into their joint bank account, giving her the reason to believe they had an implied contract that she was a partner and would receive one-half of the profits. In
By 1997 the case, along with another case, (Quill v. Vacco), reached the Supreme Court. The decision in the Supreme Court did not, however, meet up to the original case. The defense won the trial.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
Tracy First v. City of Tracy, Third Appellate District 914 Capitol Mall, 4th Floor Sacramento,
PROCEDURAL HISTORY= This was brought to the state court were Jacobson was found guilty and then after exhausting the state level he appealed to supreme court of the United States.
The practice was common back in the 1950’s, Henrietta did not ask any questions because of this practice and also segregation laws were still in effect, so “black people didn’t question white people’s professional judgment”(Skloot 63). When Henrietta was unconscious on the operating table she believed that she was just getting radium to treat cancer, they were also taking tissue of her tumor, and healthy tissue cells from her cervix, this is an ethical issue because “no one had told Henrietta that TeLinde was collecting samples”, they also had not asked “if she wanted to be a donor”(Skloot 33). Another issue of this, is when Henrietta did not receive any credit for what she has done and the family did not even know about this until two decades later after her cells were harvested and cloned, they even released a genome of the strain of the HeLa cells without the family’s
To begin, the ownership of the tissue should belong to the person until removed from the body with consent or no, which greatly complicates the issue. To illustrate, the instance where Dr. Jones at John Hopkins took samples of Henrietta's cervix tumor to use for cancer research by George Guy was a situation in which should be justified as the best course of action Dr. Jones took (53). Not only did the tissue taken provide the medical world a vital resource for research and study, but also it failed to have any negative effects on the deceased owner, Henrietta Lacks, yet many people found it as questionable. Moreover, the abuse of tissues taken from patients cannot be ignored such as the Moore v. Regents of the University of California Moore sued because he did not want the commercialization of his tissue and his doctor, Golde, did not inform him of the financial potential of his tissue before requesting consent; however, these abuses have demonstrated that the lack of “informed consent” when requesting tissue dona...
George Gey didn’t take the cells to make money. He gave the samples to anyone who wanted them, and had a reason to have them, for free. He never made a cent off of Henrietta’s cells. “Johns Hopkins never patented HeLa cells, and therefore does not own the right to the HeLa cell line. John Hopkins also did not sell or profit from the discovery or distribution of HeLa cells” (McDaniels 1). The people who got free samples of the cells were the people who made money of the cells. They started to produce the cells themself. Even though John Hopkins Hospital never made any money they aren’t innocent. They took the cells without Henrietta’s consent. They also lied to the family about taking blood samples from them. They had an asian woman call the family, and tell them that they were going to take blood samples from them to see if they were at risk of getting cancer. First off, the asian woman wasn’t good at speaking english so the family had a hard time understanding what they were actually doing. Second, they weren’t actually testing to see if they were at risk of getting cancer. They were actually using them for studying Henrietta’s cell line. The children’s cell line could help to compare the Henrietta’s cell line because they kids have some of the same cells that she has (McDaniels
On January 27, 1964, the court released her upon recommendation of two doctors appointed by the probate court to examine her. She filed law suits for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malpractice against Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk and Ardmore Acres. The court dismissed case on Smyk and Ardmore (115, 497, & 924, 1969) and (Swainson, n.d.).
National Institutes of Health.
Because the Edward’s patent was accepted in 2014, I only looked for patents between 2010 and 2018. Of the seventeen patents made in this time frame (to date), seven are contributed to either Judy and/or Bobby. As far as I could tell, of the remaining patents, there was no signs of
SEC.2005. “Complaint: SEC v. L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Mark A. Belnick”. 2/16/2005.
...pple Inc. While this amount awarded to Apple Inc. was much less than they were going for it was also significantly lower than what Judge Koh vacated after the previous trial; that number being 400 million. This case was a very large win for Apple Inc. and their power in the electronics industry. This ruling was also a huge statement made in terms of patent infringement. As Colleen Allen said in an interview, “If we didn't award Apple much, we're saying it's OK to infringe patents”
Web. The Web. The Web. 1 Apr 2011. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/150999.php>.