MHACB508Reflection 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
508
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by SuperProton12023
MHACB/508
Reflection 3
Taylor Abbott
Contemporary Ethics
The analogy that Mr Lengauer makes really made me think. Lack’s cells, she had
no idea were being used for other scientific reasons, however if she did know would she
had allowed it? Would she have even wanted money from it? Or just the satisfaction of
knowing she was saving millions of lives?
So I think about donating my body to science, if they find something that could
help cure others, is it right that my children benefit monetarily from that? However, then I
think what if I knew I had a cell that could possibly help save lives, would I be selfish
and never let it go any further than being apart of me? I feel like that analogy carried
many different answers and feelings.
Interactions like the one that occurred when a doctor was treating Henrietta with
Radium for the first time while also harvesting cells from her tumor are prohibited under
the law because the doctor did not obtain the patient’s consent. Gey’s growth of
Henrietta’s without her permission would be illegal today as well (Skloot, 2014).
When Mukusick directed Susan Hsu to get blood from Henrietta’s family, she
didn’t’ make sure Day and his children where aware why the blood was even being
obtained, as well as not getting any informed consent. Mukusick’s goal was to find out
what HLA markers Henrietta had. Since that incident the NIG principles for informed
consent and review board approval have been enshrined into law. No scientist today
would publish the results of that research because revealing a person’s name and
genetic information would violate HIPPA.
Part 2 – Contemporary Perspectives
The first point that I think is interesting is point 2. I WAS OF THREE MINDS.
Skloot started this story to tell about the immortalization of Henrietta’s cells. There was a
lot of information that was not scientific or necessary to tell the story of the cells. There
was never anything mentioned about testing for mental or emotional health which would
have given some cause for some of the information shared but the HeLa cells story did
not require information like that. The information about her sexually transmitted disease
may have helped with the fact that the cancer she had was cervical cancer. The Privacy
Act that exists today would have prevented any of this information from being shared
without consent.
The second point that I think is interesting is point 4. AN INDECIPHERABLE
CAUSE.
There were two central transgressions with the research that was done with Mrs. Lacks
cells. One was the failure to get informed consent from Lacks to use those cells in the
laboratory for another research. The other was a failure to de-identify the cell line. The
violations were of autonomy and privacy. The question remains that if name that was
used to identify Lacks cells was changed to something other than her name would
privacy have been breached? There are many ways to answer a lot of the questions this
story brings up.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Skloot, R. (2014). The Woman In Immortal Life.
h
ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/secretlife/blogposts/the-immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks-
b
ook-excerpt-part3