Hela Cell Case Study

“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” is the story of Hela cells and the women and family behind them. HeLa cells are the cells that have helped scientists all around the world discover cures and vaccines that have saved thousands of lives. But before they did all those things, they were inside a woman, named Henrietta Lacks, and were taken from her without her knowledge. Her family would not know about her cells until years after her death and millions of dollars in revenue gained from the HeLa cells. At the time doctors did what was considered common practice but did they cross a line? Or were the amazing scientific achievements enough to excuse the violation of personal privacy? Despite good intentions doctors should never have taken Henrietta’s cells without her consent, and furthermore her family deserves compensation for the work those cells have helped accomplish, and the sometimes horrible circumstances they have had to deal with because of the cells.

I believe that the Lacks family should without a doubt be compensated for the HeLa cells. There were so many unethical things done to not only Henrietta but here family as well especially with the DNA blood samples that were taken and they deserve the right to be compensated. So many scientist made money off of the cells

The main ethical issues in this case is that researches at Johns Hopkins Hospital used Henrietta’s cell in multiple researches and send her cells to other researchers around the world without her family’s consent. Moreover, the Lackes themselves were used in medical research without informed consent, and Henrietta’s medical records were release to journalists without her family knowing.

In the example with the HeLa cells, a great debate was raised when the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was published. The debate centered around the lack of information of where the cells came from, who should have known about the original harvesting, and the lack of compensation for Henrietta’s family once the cells started generating income. Also discussed was the tendency of the medical community to

Third, although the public health discovery of the HeLa cells improved the quality of life for many families/communities and the overall nation, it did not positively influence the quality of life of Henrietta Lacks or her family. Henrietta Lacks cells were not only taken from her body once and sent to unauthorized holders, but a second time after she passed away from cervical cancer. Neither Henrietta nor her family had given consent for Dr. Gey or the coroner to remove cells from her body and send them off for research

Much medical advancement would not have been possible without cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks. While these HeLa cells are infamous in the medical community, the story behind them was barely known by any until Rebecca Skloot uncovered it.1 Information about Henrietta Lacks uncovers a history of consent not being asked for, and certainly not being given, but because of the cells, medical discoveries were made without her family’s knowledge.1 It brings to light the idea that while cells are a part of a person’s body, once they are out of the human body there is no more ownership. Without informed consent though, is it still owned by the person whose cells they are?

HeLa simply stands for Henrietta Lacks, a young mother in the 1951 who went to the doctor complaining of vaginal bleeding and discovered she had cervical cancer. Henrietta’s cells were taken for a biopsy and were found to be like nothing ever seen before; her cells were immortal. Her cancer cells double every 20 to 24 hours and have lived on for the past 60 years. Since HeLa cells were created, our world of modern medicine has been completely changed. We now vaccines for once incurable diseases and have used the cells for cloning and other biomedical research. Although the cells have done a great deal of good,

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.

This would create a big mess in science because patients would block the progress of science by holding huge amount of profits even when they don’t worth much. I don’t agree with the statement theft because when a individual comes to an hospital for any kind of check up and any type of blood testing they give right to a doctor to do whether or not to make any kind of research for their medical benefit and when they leave the hospital with their test results the one that is left like their blood samples etc. are garbage as it stated in the book, Court of California give a definite statement that says; “When tissues are removed from your body, with or without your consent, any claim you might owning them vanishes. When you leave a tissue in a doctor’s office or a lab, you abandon them as a waste, and anyone can take you garbage and sell it.”(Page 205) I do not think this is a situation that can be name as theft because selling someone’s garbage is not stealing because they are leaving them with their own

Bobette met a research scientist who said he had been working with cells from a woman named Henrietta Lacks, Bobette’s reaction can be seen here, “But Bobette kept shaking her head saying, ‘how come nobody told her family part of her was still alive?’ ‘I wish I knew’ he said. Like most researchers, he’d never thought about whether the woman behind the HeLa cells had given them voluntarily’” (Skloot 180). The research scientist she talked to, along with countless other scientists, had never thought about the woman behind the cells and this is part of the reason nobody ever told the family about the cells. Bobette finally found out about the HeLa cells after twenty-five years of no information and a revolution in medicine caused by her late mother-in-law. But it did not get better for the Lacks family after discovering Henrietta’s cell line. Every time one of the Lackses asked questions about Henrietta’s cells, the professionals would never take time to answer their questions, to help them understand what had happened at Johns Hopkins with the cells, or to explain to the Lackses what Henrietta’s cells accomplished. The doctors did not care about the patients and their families, but more about what was in it for them. The doctors did not look at the situation ethically by not telling the family about the cells. They also violated privacy values, which are now rights. They

In this semester’s book club, I have enjoyed the book called The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. This book describes a true and famous cell line in the medical research field, that is the first immortal cell line in the world, HeLa cells. Not until I finished reading this fantastic book, I know that the HeLa cells were taken from a cervical cancer patient, Henrietta Lacks, without letting her know the truth about using her cells in research, even though she died. What more surprising to me was that her family lived a hard life without health insurance while the researchers make many profits from developing HeLa cells, they were never informed about their family member’s devotion to the scientific research.

When the family expressed concerns about privacy, the scientists removed the sequence from the Internet. Hudson and other NIH leaders then met with the Lacks family. Together, the family and the NIH came to an agreement. Researchers can use the HeLa genome by applying to the NIH for access. A group of scientists and Lacks family members review the applications. From now on, when a scientist publish a research conducted using HeLa cells, it must include a thank you note to the Henrietta Lacks and her family for their everlasting gifts to science (Barone 2). Science has used HeLa cells in many ways. For example, HeLa cells are used to study HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, HeLa cells prove that HPV can cause cervical cancer, there is a vaccine that protects against some strains of the virus now, and HeLa cells are also tested to see how quickly they can absorb nanoparticles, which can suggest new methods for delivering drugs to cancer cells. It’s crazy that Henrietta is technically alive after being dead for 60+ years. Her cancerous cells continue to thrive and multiple till this day, around the world. Her cells have help further the medical field, such as find vaccines and doing further studies for HPV and HIV (Barone 3-4). I’m so happy that Henrietta’s family and Henrietta get the acknowledgement they deserve, but still very disappointed that

Cell larceny, theft by non-disclosure. Doctors, often without patient knowledge, use patient’s cells to advance scientific studies and make profit. Doctors accumulate enormous profit stealing cells. Cases such as Henrietta Lacks and John Moore highlight the injustices caused by intentional misuse of cells. In contrast, Ted Slavin’s case exemplifies the beneficial outcome that is achieved when a patient and doctor work together to achieve a common goal. Doctors should be required to notify and obtain permission to use patient samples for research other than its original purpose, and the patient or their family should have control over who uses the samples to ensure proper usage and benefits of all involved parties.

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

Rebecca talks about whether or not people should have the rights to their own tissues. She points out two issues, consent and money. In the past there was no informed consent, so the doctors and researchers felt free to use tissues in whatever way they wished, with little concern for patients' rights. Nowadays there is a different system, and it's required by the law to ask for a patient's informed consent.mThe money issue is a question of whether doctors should be required to tell patients if their cells or tissues are going to be used for commercial research, and what rights those donors should have. Later on, “scientists sequenced Henrietta Lacks's genome and made it public, without asking the family's permission” which was just another way in which the family was violated and looked over (Silver). Apparently Henrietta didn't get her rights, and neither did her children. Any way we look at it, if the family had received any benefits from the cells, it