Legality of Risk Management

Solution Preview

The solution is in the attached documents.

The case selected for research involves a young man who agreed to participate in a
clinical trial for a medication developed to treat Schizophrenia. The medication was developed
by Astra Zeneca, who provided payment to the young man's physician, who gave the diagnosis
and also enrolled the young man in the clinical trial. The twenty seven year old committed
suicide roughly six months after being enrolled in the trial and beginning the medication. His
mother subsequently sued the researchers, institution conducting the research and the
pharmaceutical company. While a judge found the pharmaceutical company and the research
institution not liable, under different circumstances. The mother settled with the researcher
and claims that as the treating physician and in the dual role of primary investigator of the
research, there was an inherent lack of objectivity and the diagnosis could have been made to
further the investigator's research. She further claims her son did not possess sound judgment
at the time he signed papers to participate in the trial.
While the financial burden in this case is less substantial than in many similar cases, it
could have been potentially much more severe. The $75,000 settlement to the mother, from
the researcher and primary investigator is likely nothing more than a token gesture. The cost
to the physician could have far greater implications, if the negative publicity affects the
physician's private practice. Fewer patients mean less revenue and the possibility that the
practice might eventually fail. In addition, the questionable dual role might make the
institution's board of directors question the ethics of performing in both roles. If the physician
is asked to step down, due to the lack of ethical consideration, an additional loss of income

will ensue.
The cost from a highly publicized trial has financial implications for both ...