Consent and Informed Consent

Guide to: MOORE v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal 1990)

What is the PRIOR HISTORY?

What is the standard of review to a demurrer?

What does the court assume about complaint?

What does the court not assume?

Who is the plaintiff?

Who are the defendants and what do they do?

When does your time line start?

What did the defendants know at this point about cell lines?

What did they recommend?

What were they going to do with his spleen after removing it?

Did they inform him or ask his permission?

Would this have mattered if they had not made any money and had not done anything else to the plaintiff?

What did they do next that could be a technical battery?

Why were they doing this?

What was the product?

Who got the patent?

What financial goodies did Golde get?

What killed plaintiff procedurally with the trial court?

What should you lead with in your complaint?

What causes of action did plaintiff plead?

What did the court of appeals do?

What were the 3 principles they began with?

What conclusions did these lead to?

How could this have been plead as a malpractice case?

What existing law did the court point to about physician's economic interests?

What must the doc do if he is an owner of a lab and wants to send the patient to it for a test?

What does a patient have to be told about medical experiments?

What are the potential conflicts for a physician who does research on patients he also treats?

When does a research use of the patient's tissues not raise a conflict of interests?

What could be the downside of telling the patients?

Where is the obligatory therapeutic exception language?

How is this different for research situations?

What does the court rule that the physician must tell about research and other interests?

How does the court limit their use of the term fiduciary?

Why does the physician have to disclose these personal interests?

What are the facts that support plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty causation against Golde?

What about the postoperative taking of samples?

What did more admit that hurt his case on the post-op stuff?

When did the court say that Golde's representations about the financial interests become false?

What did the trial court say was the standard Moore had to make to claim a breach of duty on the spleenectomy?

Why did the SC reject this?

What is the problem of the remaining defendants?

How can we bring them in? When did they enter the picture?

What is wrong in N12?