According to the court, Moore had a right to know about the physician's potential pecuniary interest in the patient's tissue or blood samples

According to the court, Moore had a right to know about the physician's potential pecuniary interest in the patient's tissue or blood samples. I believe the doctor should have mentioned to the patient his conflicts of interest and what might have happened to the organs after the treatment. Moore should have been given far more information before his operation than he was

4. Moore appears to have met his duty in this circumstance. Moore's educational background is unknown, as is whether he followed his doctor's recommendations uncritically. Because of his poor educational level, he may not have understood the consent procedure or felt comfortable approaching his doctors. Some patients mistakenly believe that their doctor will never harm them. If Moore had been a patient in a university medical facility conducting research, I would have questioned why he didn't consider the physician's involvement in the study. The patient also had cancer and was most likely making decisions based on emotions and fear. Because he was terrified for his life, the patient may not have made operational decisions with his intellect clear.

5. Golde failed to disclose his financial interests to the patient, which violated informed consent. Moore could have exercised his right to refuse treatment if he had been aware of the physician's financial gain from his tissue and bodily fluid samples. According to Pozgar, "adult patients who are cognizant and mentally competent have the freedom to decline medical care" (2014). The patient would then have the right to seek a second opinion from another doctor. Dr. Golde should have informed the patient about what would happen to his spleen and samples after they were removed from his body. The doctor should have been more candid.

Can i get reply post on above DB?