1. Canterbury
For this case, I want you to focus on Sections I through VI of the Opinion.
Based on these first few Sections of the Opinion, I do not see a clear answer on whether the possibility of paralysis is even required for the court to reach its conclusion. Certainly, this possible side effect is a pretty significant one within the category of possible outcomes. But the doctor said the probability for this specific outcome was 1%. Should that be enough to require disclosure?
– attachment: only look at Sections I through VI.
2. Moore v. Regents of University of California
This case made its way up to the Supreme Court of CA for a claim of conversion, which is an intentional tort of claiming ownership over tangible property inconsistent with a right of possession the owner of tangible property might otherwise claim. Rights of ownership v. rights of possession are two different concepts and sometimes in clinical trials biological samples are taken during the course of the trial and also for future unknown exploratory studies (like biomarker studies), therefore, how do you think this case may have changed how informed consents are drafted now in light of biological sample collection?
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/51/120.html
also see attachment
each question for one page, APA citation