Human Experimentation/Consent and Informed Consent

Study Guide - Schiff v. Prados, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2001)

Who are the plaintiffs and what are the injuries?

Who are the defendants and what is their relationship to the plaintiffs?

What are the theories of negligence?

What is being appealed?

What sort of facility was the plaintiff treated in?

What is a tumor board and why is it important in this case?

What do the plaintiffs claim were the options presented by the docs?

What were the options and recommendations of the oncology department?

Are they that different from those described by the patient?

Did the plaintiffs ask about alternative treatments?

What were they told by the defendants?

Did defendant say that the treatments would cure her?

How did the plaintiffs find out about Burzynski?

What sort of treatment did Burzynski offer?

Was it FDA approved?

Did Dr. Prados know of Burzynski?

What did Dr. Prados think of Burzynski?

What was the "special exemption" Burzynski got to treat plaintiff?

Does it mean that the FDA thought his treatment was OK?

Why did the FDA let him treat her at all?

Were there other legal things going on with Burzynski, other than FDA scrutiny?

Should you take the reports that she was cancer free at face value?

Why are appellant court decisions not a good source of facts?

What does the autopsy show?

Does that mean that Burzynski's treatment was working?

Is there another reason why the tumor might have gone away?

What did plaintiffs claim was the cause of Crystin's death?

What did plaintiff's claim that defendants did not tell them?

What is their causation argument?

What was Dr. Prados first motion for summary judgment based on?

Did the court grant it?

What the basis for this second motion for summary judgment?

What did the court rule?

What were some of the other treatments that Dr. Prados did not tell the plaintiffs about?

Why did he without hold this information?

What is it about tumors that make it hard to tell if Burzynski's treatments work?

Why does it look like they work?

What is the sample problem?

Which patients do you not hear from?

When did the court say that the doc must disclose alternative treatments?

What did the plaintiffs' experts say?

Why wasn't that enough to get to the jury?

What happened in Smith v. Shalala?

Why does that not help Dr. Prados?

What happened in Spann v. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers?

Why did the blood bank not have to tell about plasmapherisis?

How is the instant case different from Spann?

Why couldn't Dr. Prados use this treatment?

What question does the court say this case presents?

How are CA's laws different from the FDA's on regulation of the use of drugs in the practice of medicine?

Does CA allow research?

What is the "legitimate state interest" expressed in these statutes?

Burzynski testified in an affidavit that he had an IND to use the drug on children with brain tumors.

What did the court reject this?

What was the issue in Spencer By And Through Spencer v. Seikel?

What did the court rule about the claim that Dr. Prados should have to tell plaintiffs of treatments that were available in Texas but not in California?

What if it were a drug on an IND but it was only available in a clinical trial?

What if compassionate use is available?

What if is on an IND but you can buy it on the Internet?