20

ideas developed in alargerwork, “Medical Research Litigation and Malpractice Tort Doctrines: Courts on a Learning Curve,” Houston Jouml ofHealth Law and Policy 4, no. 1 (2003). Substantial portions of this article were completed while the author was Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Medical Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch. The author acknowledges with gratitude the very helpful comments provided on earlier drafts by Joan Krause, J.D., Peter Jacobson, J.D., M.P.H., Kendra Dimond, J.D., Lance Stell, Ph.D., Jerry MenikoR, M.D., J.D., Ed Richards, J.D., M.P.H., William Winslade, J.D., Ph.D. References 1. T. Abate, “Rules for Clinical Rials are Confusing, Inconsistent,”San Fmncisw Chronicle, August 5,2002, at A-1, available at ; E.A. Price and J.A. Lemons, ‘Clinical Rials: Protecting the Subject, Avoiding Liabdity, and Managing Risk“ Health Law E@t: Egest Analg& 2002 30, no. 1 (2002): 3-13, at 8-9; Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger, 782 k2d 807,838-39 (Md. 2001). 12. Goldner, supra note 6, at 88. 13. U. S. v. Stanley, 107 S.Ct. 3054 (1987). LSD, or lysergic axid diethylamide, is an hallucinogenic drug. 14. Jdee v. United States, 663 F2d 1226 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 2234 (1982). See also Begay v. United States, 768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1985); Scottv. Casey, 562 FSupp. 475 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20