Review the case study Medical Research and Duty to Warn in
Chapter 2 of Pozgar (2020) (pgs. 83-84). Address the following in an
APA-formatted Word document of 1,000 to 1,500 words:
·
Describe the ethical
and legal principles violated in the case.
·
What prevention
measures should be taken to prevent reoccurrence of cases such as this?
Support your perspective using evidence-based
information from at least 3 authoritative (Links to an external site.) sources.
Refer to the sample student paper (Links to an external
site.) for further guidance in formatting your case study papers.
Note that per current APA style, student papers do not need to have a running
head. Be sure to include a title page and references page. You do not need to
include an abstract.
Medical Research and Duty to
Warn
About
5,000 patients at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, located in
Chicago, Illinois, were treated with X-ray therapy for some benign conditions
of the head and neck from 1930 to 1960. Among them was Joel Blaz, now a
resident of Florida, who received this treatment for infected tonsils and
adenoids while a child in Illinois from 1947 through 1948. He has suffered
various tumors, which he now attributes to this treatment. Blaz was diagnosed
with a neural tumor in 1987.
In 1974,
Michael Reese set up the Thyroid Follow-Up Project to gather data and conduct
research among the people who had been subjected to the X-ray therapy. In 1975,
the program notified Blaz by mail that he was at increased risk of developing
thyroid tumors because of the treatment. In 1976, someone associated with the program gave him
similar information by phone and invited him to return to Michael Reese for
evaluation and treatment at his own expense, which he declined to do.
Dr. Arthur
Schneider was placed in charge of the program in 1977. In 1979, Schneider and
Michael Reese submitted a research proposal to the National Institutes of
Health stating that a study based on the program showed “strong evidence” of a
connection between X-ray treatments of the sort administered to Blaz and
various sorts of tumors: thyroid, neural, and others. In 1981, Blaz received
but did not complete or return a questionnaire attached to a letter from
Schneider in connection with the program. The letter stated that the purpose of
the questionnaire was to “investigate the long-term health implications” of
childhood radiation treatments and to “determine the possible associated
risks.” It did not say anything about “strong evidence” of a connection between
the treatments and any tumors.
In 1996,
after developing neural tumors, Blaz sued Michael Reese’s successor, Galen
Hospital in Illinois, and Dr. Schneider, alleging, among other things, that
they failed to notify and warn him of their findings that he might be at
greater risk of neural tumors in a way that might have permitted their earlier detection
and removal or other treatment. There is a clear duty to warn the subject of
previously administered radiation treatments when there is a strong connection
between those treatments and certain kinds of tumors. The harm alleged, neural
and other tumors would here be reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence
of a failure to warn and was in fact foreseen by Schneider. A reasonable
physician, indeed any reasonable person, could foresee that if someone were
warned of “strong evidence” of a connection between treatments to which he had
been subjected and tumors, he would probably seek diagnosis or treatment and
perhaps avoid these tumors, and if he were not warned he probably would not
seek diagnosis or treatment, increasing the likelihood that he would suffer
from such tumors. Other things being equal, therefore, a reasonable physician
would warn the subject of the treatments.140