AIR 12 · CSE 2018 · GS4 · 66 pages

Namrata Jain: GS4 answer copy

22 answers by Namrata Jain, as written in the test. Each question opens a page with how other toppers answered it.

The questions

  1. Q11. क्या इस अध्ययन में डॉ. सिंह की भागीदारी उचित है? अपना औचित्य सिद्ध कीजिए। 2. क्या डॉ. सिंह हितों के टकराव से जुड़े हैं? यदि हां, तो ऐसे टकराव की प्रकृति क्या है? इसका शमन कैसे किया जा सकता है? 3. यदि उनके नाम पहले से ही शेयर नहीं होते तथा उक्त अध्ययन के संचालन के एवज में शेयर का प्रस्ताव किया गया होता तो हितों के टकराव की प्रकृति किस प्रकार अलग होती?
  2. Q22. क्या डॉ. सिंह हितों के टकराव से जुड़े हैं? यदि हां, तो ऐसे टकराव की प्रकृति क्या है? इसका शमन कैसे किया जा सकता है।
  3. Q33. यदि उनके नाम पहले से ही शेयर नहीं होते तथा उक्त अध्ययन के संचालन के एवज में शेयर का प्रस्ताव किया गया होता तो हितों के टकराव की प्रकृति किस प्रकार अलग होती?
  4. Q1020 marks
  5. Q14Dr. A.K. Singh, a professor of medicine, is a prominent cardiologist. His personal financial investments include significant stock holdings in three publicly traded biotechnology firms. He is approached by one of these firms to be a lead investigator in a therapeutic trial of a novel agent for preventing tissue damage from myocardial infarction (MI). This will be a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial (neither patient nor physician will know whether the drug under investigation or a placebo is being used in a given patient). Dr. Singh is quite familiar with the preliminary animal and cell biology work in the area and believes that there is an excellent chance that this new drug will result in a significant improvement in survival and reduce damage to the heart muscle. He even thinks this novel agent may reduce the risk of heart failure and irregular beats. Dr. Singh's group is one of the few cardiology groups fully prepared to carry out this investigation, which is why he was contacted. He cares for a large number of patients with MI and believes that he could enroll numerous patients efficiently. The drug will only be available to his patients if his group participates in the trial. The company is offering Rs. 25 lakh for each patient enrolled. As a lead investigator, he will become much better known and will likely experience an increase in referrals if the trial succeeds. 1. Is Dr. Singh's participation in this study appropriate? Justify your position. 2. Does Dr. Singh have a conflict of interest? If so, what is the nature of the conflict? How could it be mitigated. 3. How would the nature of the conflict of interest be different had he not already owned stock, but instead had been offered stock as a form of compensation for conducting the study?20 marks

The answers

Question 1 · 232 words written

1. क्या इस अध्ययन में डॉ. सिंह की भागीदारी उचित है? अपना औचित्य सिद्ध कीजिए। 2. क्या डॉ. सिंह हितों के टकराव से जुड़े हैं? यदि हां, तो ऐसे टकराव की प्रकृति क्या है? इसका शमन कैसे किया जा सकता है? 3. यदि उनके नाम पहले से ही शेयर नहीं होते तथा उक्त अध्ययन के संचालन के एवज में शेयर का प्रस्ताव किया गया होता तो हितों के टकराव की प्रकृति किस प्रकार अलग होती?

Opening · no separate opening

None written.

Body · points and prose

Diagram
(Stakeholders are: Doctor, Agency, Patient, Society, Investigating)
  1. The participation of Dr. Singh has following issues: a) Lack of transparent display of the treatment - neither patient nor the physician will be knowledgeable of the drug.
  • This is the clear violation of rights of patients to have clear information. b) Luring by money and reputation: By offering amount per patient, it is the lure of money power. c) Not fully in accordance to the doctor Ethics. But it has certain benefits by participation - a) Treatment and saving of life of patients ensued. b) Right to life as well as the effective treatment. The participation comes with benefits but lacks the ethical aspect of patients' Right to Information, ethical behavioural of doctor - whom patients treat equivalent to God and lured by money and reputation.
  1. Conflict of interest : a. Personal monetary gains verses the crisis of conscience of fair play. b. Reputation ensured in short term verses cheating by avoiding accountability, full information to patients (being stockholder). c. Availability of drug to small section verses the public service motive and ethics of doctors. It can be mitigated by proper dialogue with the firm to ensure that the treatment is given to all patients but by the information of that investigation process without any favour.
  2. The nature of conflict between - to gain the position and no accountability since earlier you were not the stock holder.

Close · no separate close

None written.