Remove 2014 Remove FDA Remove Informed Consent
article thumbnail

FDA Issues Final Guidance on Informed Consent for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors

Health Law Advisor

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) released final guidance on informed consent for clinical investigations (“Final Guidance”). This update follows FDA’s draft guidance, which was issued in July 2014, and supersedes the FDA’s “A Guide to Informed Consent,” which was issued in September 1998.

article thumbnail

FDA Finalizes Its Informed Consent Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators and Sponsors

Hall Render

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) finalized “ Informed Consent: Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors ” (“Final Guidance”), following the FDA’s earlier issuance of draft guidance on the subject in July 2014. On August 15, 2023, the U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Can Children Consent to the COVID Vaccine? The Case of Foster Care and Juvenile Justice

Bill of Health

Bureau 1, 2 (2014); Robert B. 8] Young people under age 18 in California detention centers need parental consent to receive the vaccine. Omicron Surge , Bloomberg (Dec. 31, 2021), [link] (describing a record number of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations due to the omicron variant). [2] & Fams., 3] Bell, supra note 99 at 26. [4]

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

The prescriber] provided explicit, uncontroverted testimony that, even when provided with the most current research and FDA mandated warnings, as well as the information found in [defendant’s] updated. . . Abbott Laboratories , 2014 WL 4197494, at *7 (C.D. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 3d 1223, 1233 (11th Cir.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff in Jacob sued the manufacturer of a Class III, FDA premarket-approved medical device. First, the plaintiff’s non-parallel claims were “preempted to the extent” that they would have imposed “alleged labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from, or in addition to, those imposed by the FDA.” 341 (2001).

article thumbnail

PREP Act Immunity: Baghikian v. Providence Health & Servs.

Drug & Device Law

Not to mention, it is a powerful defense for our clients in product liability matters because it can foreclose liability and plaintiffs’ use of tort lawsuits (invariably creatures of state law origin) to impose requirements on medical devices or pharmaceuticals that the federal FDA did not. What could be better than preemption? United Bhd.