Case 2 A woman (Mrs. X) had been tissue typed at the University of Iowa hospital as a potential donor for her 3-year-old son. Unfortunately her son had died of leukemia before she could become a doner.

A 27-year-old leukemia client, Mr. Head, from Louisiana asked an Iowa district court to intervene on his behalf with the Iowa Institutional Review Board (IRB). He wanted the board to make a third appeal to contact Mrs. X. Mr. Head needed a bone marrow donor. He had called several medical centers within the United States attempting to find a suitable unrelated donor.

He had received information about a potential donor when a technician informed him, without authorization, that a possible matching donor, Mrs. X, did exist.

Mrs. X's name was obtained from the computer files of the University of Iowa, IRB. Mr. Head asked the IRB to send a letter to the prospective donor. After much deliberation, the IRB decided to send a letter to Mrs. X stating the problem and describing its program.

Two letters were in fact sent; Mrs. X answered neither of them. When the IRB made a telephone call to Mrs. X, she responded that she had received the letters but that she was unwilling to be a donor unless it was for a relative.

When Mr. Head was informed of this decision, he retained a lawyer and went to court. He wanted the court to try one more time to get Mrs. X to agree to be a donor.

Discussion Questions

1. Does Mrs. X's original informed consent for tissue typing as a possible bone marrow donor for her 3-year-old son protect her from future requests?

2. Has Mrs. X's privacy been invaded? Defend your response.

3. What obligations does the IRB have to Mr. Head? To Mrs. X?

4. Will a subsequent court verdict affect anyone but these two people? Support your answer.