Talk:Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Wrong

THIS IS NOT RIGHT HE MUST BE SHOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.250.117 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2006

Wrong, doing so would unfairly limit potentially beneficial medical research that could save our lives! He should have given Moore the choice, but as a property issue the Doc is in the clear. BTW Moore didn’t want to keep his spleen; after all he’s not Tom Cruise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.27.20 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 September 2006

• _ _ Besides the incitement being criminal, and indeed maladaptive, the suggestion of substantial wrongdoing is just recklessly uncritical. Whatever Moore's hired-gun shysters (excuse me, i'm not sure that they weren't, instead, ivory-tower-theory-obsessed do-gooders) may have intimated about the potential risk of temptations to similarly situated doctors, who might unduly harm patients, the court ruled that if he had been harmed he could sue over that. It sounds like they made no case that he'd been significantly harmed. (Was the monetary award perhaps about the emotional harm of later learning his right to exhaustively informed consent had been dissed?) There is no evidence in this article that his medical treatment in any way failed to meet the highest standards of addressing his needs & interests re health. I don't feel bad that the docs were penalized for a marginal ethical lapse; the courts are in part there to deal with borderline issues in areas where there is no prior clear and settled law and ethics. But treating their behavior as outrageous is absurd, and bad for all of us.

_ _ BTW, a rational society will, in the long run, probably decide that one of a person's obligations is (as patient) to freely permit use of their (and their tumors') genetic information (even if at some level of personal cost), and will probably continue to devalue individual raw genetic material and reward the intellectual effort that produces discoveries, just as we devalue the clay that is dug up for sculptors, and reward independently the expressive product the sculptor cannot arrive at without the clay. (I think Iceland has already decided that, to the extent of mandating gene-library participation in the absence of actively opting out.)
--Jerzy•t 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The harms Moore experienced were (A) the straightforward harm of loss of time and money coming to Los Angeles for follow up which he could have received in the area where he lived (Seattle); (B) the harms of additional blood draws (minimal risk) and bone marrow and skin biopsy collections (slightly greater than minimal risk) -- additional procedures done without informed consent (the removal of the spleen was standard of care for his disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; the "consent" mentioned in the article was a standard surgery consent, not an IRB reviewed and approved research consent); (C) the loss of trust in the medical profession that Dr. Golde was representing himself as providing only necessary medical care when, in fact, he had an ulterior motive.Multiplepov (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal ("John Moore (patent)" to here)

John Moore (patent) has nothing encyclopedic that does not belong here. I think i saw something abt him becoming an activist on related issues; if there are more than three encyclopedic sentences abt that, they could be the meat of a stub that would also lk here, but the merge should be done now, and later, once his activism is shown to be notable, a Rdr from John Moore (patent) to here could be converted into a bio-stub that would lk here from the sentence or two that his bio should devote to it.
--Jerzy•t 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yea that sounds good. Their doesn't appear to be anything in the other article that is not already here.Lotu 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely concur. There is nothing in the mini biography worth having a separate article. Wahnfried 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

history section is suspect

The history section includes several statements regarding the defendants' intentions and states of mind at various times decades ago. If these are verifiable, citations should be provided. If not, the statements do not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.52.155 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Expired link

The lawnix link for the case brief redirects in a loop

Thank you for letting us know. It's been replaced with a new brief link. Muttnick (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, ISBN 978-4000-5217-2 24.93.173.153 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)