Greenburg V. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute Case Study

Currently, there is no established regulation addressing the ownership of human tissues. Court approached the issue in significantly divergent forms, both defending that we possess our tissues and concluding that we do not at all. The topic is pertinent to science in general, and not only to neuroscience, as its implications heavily affect scientific research.

In many ways, the hospital system in America is set up mirroring our government. They are similar in the way that checks and balances have been set in place to ensure the best possible care is delivered to patients. With these checks and balances there are three main bodies; the governing board, medical staff, and executive management (Showalter, 2017). The duties and responsibilities of each body many times is to oversee and continually check the others. A prime example of this system can be seen through the case of Moore v. The Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, which took place in Nevada and was heard before the Supreme Court of the state in 1972 (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972). Specifically, in this case, the duty of the governing board to “exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining medical staff” is questioned in contrast with the right of the physician to have “due process… when disciplinary action is taken” (Showalter, 2017). In hopes of changing a decision by the governing board, and attempting to reverse the decision of a lower court, the appellant, Dr. Moore, brought the case against Carson-Tahoe Hospital (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972).

Gilbert Bishop was admitted to Laurel Creek Health Care Center on July 23, 2002, after arriving via ambulance without family present. During that examination, Gilbert communicated to Laurel Creek staff that he could not use his hands well enough to write or hold a pencil. Gilbert was otherwise found to be mentally competent. Gilbert’s sister, Rachel Combs, arrived after Gilbert, she offered to sign the admissions forms, but Laurel Creek employees told her that it was their policy to have the patient’s spouse sign the admissions papers if the patient was unable to sign them. Rachel also testified that Gilbert asked her to get his wife, Anna

In “Taking the Least of You”, Rebecca Skloot combines medical stories from different people and how they were either positively or negatively affected by allowing researchers to use their bodily samples for research. She discusses the use of consent, ownership, legality, and ethics. In each individual case she discusses. One man named Ted Slavin allowed his blood samples to be used for research to create a Hepatitis B cure. He signed a consent form that gave his blood to research, but he also made sure that he could get legal compensation from the research. However, a man named John Moore was different. He allowed the researchers to use his samples for research, and when he found out they were worth billions of dollars, he tried to get awarded

Korn, David. "Ownership and Use of Tissue Specimens for Research." JAMA. Vol. 292. N.p.: Amer

Anything outside of our permission or control is considered an assault. Despite our beliefs and what should be, this was quite contrary with Henrietta Lacks. An article in The Scientist noted “The global rise in biobanks – currently a $1 billion industry that is expected to grow to $2.25 billion by 2015 – also introduces other ethical concerns, including patenting of biological materials, whether donors control what happens to their tissue, whether donors should be compensated, and the privacy issues dramatically highlighted by the online publication of the HeLa genome.” Enhancing public awareness is paramount around this topic along with engaging in the ethical complexities effectively, which in the end could build awareness, boost trust, and improve an understanding around the purpose of biobanks and how they operate. Henrietta Lacks case presented a beneficial context for analyzing the legal and ethical issues that may be raised when human tissues are being used in medical research.

Based from this experiments, The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research was submitted in April 18,1979 to …….? (“Impact,” n.d.).

What if someone used your body or parts of your body for science without your permission. Patients rights is the right to keep anything medically safe and locked away from the public. The only people that would see it would be your doctor or anyone you grant to give that information to. People nowadays have that privilege to keep it iblprivate but back in the mid to the nineteenth century people didn’t exactly have that right to keep their information private. There was research conducted with people’s DNA that that person did not know about. Some tried to sue and get money from the doctors or scientists that worked on their tissues and made money off of them. But most people back then did not know that doctors had taken samples when they would be getting an operation done or to go and just get their blood

As research and technology progress forward in time, the ethical considerations that must be taken along with, not only method of study but social ramifications continues to grow exponentially. At the time when cells were taken unknowingly from Mrs. Lacks, there were not strict regulatory guidelines as to how consent should be required along with many other now ill-practice methods of medicine seen at the time. Despite agreeing that the

Research ethics were being debated in US courts so that they could sanctioned in the 1950s. Due to a court case never being made over the issue of Henrietta’s cells being researched on, “it would be decades before anyone thought to ask whether informed consent should apply in cases like [her’s], where scientists conduct research on tissues no longer attached to a person’s body” (Skloot 132). Skloot uses the fact that it was “decades” later till “anyone thought to ask” about tissues detached from the body. Since no one spoke up on this issue there were no court cases like Henrietta’s so researching on her cells was tolerated during that time period. Concurrently in a civil court case, “a patient named Martin Salgo...went under anesthesia for what he thought was a routine procedure and woke up permanently paralyzed from the waist down. The doctor hadn’t told him the procedure carried any risks at all. The judge ruled against the doctor saying… there needed to be ‘full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent’ “ (Skloot 132). Skloot employs a specific example of a judge ruling in favor of informed consent with all the risks explained, in order for the reader to question whether the same should apply for conditions like Henrietta’s. Similar to Henrietta’s case, Salgo’s doctor informed him that there were not “any risks” for the medical operation resulting in Salgo being “permanently paralyzed.” Salgo is lied which causes major medical problems that he cannot recover from. As a result, the judge believes that there needs to be “full disclosure of facts” which means the patient must know everything about the medical procedure and any of the risks. Although Henrietta’s cells were no longer a part of her body, she was never informed about

Lacks’s story is unusual because she lost her anonymity. But I’ve talked to other still-anonymous donors with strikingly similar experiences. Like the Lacks family, they’re proud they helped science. They believe tissue research is important, but they wish they’d been asked permission from the start, to avoid difficulties that followed: the shock of learning they were part of research, debates over who controlled samples, questions over profits. I’ve also heard from scientists and medical professionals who believe this transparency is overdue. And patients who want to control their tissues to, say, ensure their samples are used to study only their specific rare disease. So far, few of these people are part of the discussion. The Common Rule changes, like most such proposals, haven’t been widely publicized, and they’re laid out in a thick document even experts find confusing. But the Department of Health and Human Services has posted a brief summary and several explanatory videos. With few exceptions — like a public health emergency — the revised rule would require informed consent for research on all biospecimens, but not all genetic information inside them. How detailed that consent will be is up to researchers, but it can’t be less than “broad consent.” In a widely criticized move, the consent form template that would generally be required for “broad consent” hasn’t been released yet. Much of the debate has focused on what that form might look like, whether it can

However, the consent of subjects is enforced by the respect for the individuals used in research and the bioethicists that police peer-reviewed articles. A small hope has sprung forth from possible enforceable regulations that would require permission for the use of all human blood and tissue used in research. This has been proposed by the federal government. Sadly, neither the current standing nor the possible future of required consent is very well known in the general population. The lack of concern when it comes to these issues by the general population can be attributed to a simple problem, lack of knowledge.

In a world with over billions of people, it’s astounding to think that biologically, we are all so different, yet so alike. As generations pass, our biological design evolves and new health risks arise, which require new cures to be discovered. Researchers for decades have turned to human tissue samples for some insight and profit on the biological vulnerabilities that have surfaced through out human history. The author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot raises the subject of human tissue samples through her piece on the first immortal cells discovered and the advances it caused in the field of medical science. Unfortunately, the human body is designed in a way where while our biological make up is similar yet sometimes incompatible with one another’s. Catherine Walby, the author of “Biomedicine, Tissue Transfer and Intercorporeality”, discusses the unique identity each individuals tissues hold and the biological limitations not only physically, but psychologically when it comes to organ transplants or other bodily exchanges. Her article expresses the individuality in each individuals tissues and how it’s more than just a biological exchange. To preserve the personhood of human tissues, consent laws then come in to play. David Wendler’s article, “Consent for Research With Biological Samples: One-Time General Consent Versus a Gift Model”, explores the legality of different forms of consent

James, I fully agree that it will be ill- advised to follow the HMH board members advocating for Mr. Longs's medical history release. The confidientiality of a patient records is to be strongly valued and release of such records are to be strictly construed in accordance with their terms. In the case called Hageman v. Southwest General Health Center the plantiff Kenneth Hageman, was recieving psychiatric treatment and during his course of treatment his wife sued him for divorce. Well, too make a long story short, Mr. Hageman gave authorization to his wife attorney for release of his medical records due to a custody battle. Therafter, his wife attorney released his records to the prosecuting attorney in his wife assult case against Mr. Hageman.

It was clear negligence when it was so obvious that the toes did not have proper circulation. If the nurses were doing their job by checking on the extremities should have quickly noticed that there were circulation issues. By not reporting this was pure negligence.