This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moore v. Regents of the University of California article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
THIS IS NOT RIGHT HE MUST BE SHOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.250.117 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2006
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)
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)
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)
The lawnix link for the case brief redirects in a loop
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moore v. Regents of the University of California article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
THIS IS NOT RIGHT HE MUST BE SHOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.250.117 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2006
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)
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)
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)
The lawnix link for the case brief redirects in a loop
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)