The court contended that Moore’s interests in the privacy of his body cells were protected by the informed consent he had signed earlier on in his interaction with Dr. Golde. The court held that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action regarding the conversion of his body cells, but he could take a step in presenting a case based on theories of breach of lack of informed consent. I do not agree with the assertion. I believe Moore needed to be given more information than the court needed because although he had signed a consent form that the fluids and tissues taken out of him for test or treatment purposes should be discarded, in the end, part of them were not discarded but converted.
The court said that conversion is a strict liability tort. This implies that if the patient’s interest is considered with regards to conversion, other stakeholders who are not directly related to the case might be implicated. If patient’s interests are considered even in the case of conversion, there would be chaos in medical research.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court indicated that Moore did not have a right to the bodily fluids and tissues removed from his body because he had signed a consent that they be discarded and their use in the end do not result in the breach of his privacy or negatively affect personal interest. I partly agree with the decision in that the conversion did not have any effect on Moore, neither did it result in any harm on the patient. I, however, think that he should have been notified that his cells would be replicated for commercial purposes. This is so because this is a delicate matter that could easily be related to fiduciary duty, especially if there were instances after realizing the value of Moore’s cells when his physician might have taken bodily fluids and tissues from him for pure research purposes other than treatment.
I think Moore upheld his responsibility as a patient because it was almost impossible for him to follow up with the physician to ensure that all the fluids and tissues were discarded. Besides, the physician could have secretly retained Moore’s fluids after realizing its value.
I believe the rights of informed consent and provision of healthcare information were violated in this case. Dr. Golde should have explained to Moore about the discovery because this is part of his healthcare that could positively influence Moore’s healthcare decisions, especially with a terminal disease such as cancer. In the end, his cells should have been converted after he signed an informed consent form.
