Henrietta Lacks Research Paper

Given the patients were treated for free, using them as research subjects acted as a form of payment. I can see how the doctor’s felt justified to do so. In this case, although un-ethical today, I would have to agree with their reasoning. With a rare-form of tumor on their hands, taking samples from both the tumor and healthy tissue could be deemed of great use for the future. And taking the, seemingly, healthy tissue would only aid in the understanding of how the tumor may have formed in the first place. As a question of ethics, the doctor’s actions are tricky to address. However, if

Henrietta Lacks was a poor African American that became one of the most vital tools in developing medicines like polio vaccine, cloning, gene mapping, and much more. She was a loving mother of five, wife, sister, and friend to many that was taken on October 4, 1951 at the age of thirty-one to cervical cancer. Henrietta’s cells were taken without her knowledge to develop the first ever immortal line of cells.

Clearly, these researchers had their own agenda to acquire a medical breakthrough that would change the history of science and contribute to the greater good of society. However, their authority was used in an unwarranted manner to accomplish their goals, regardless of their respectable intentions in wanting to make medical progress. In reviewing these researchers and medical practitioners’ actions during the 1950’s which entails series of unethical behaviors and violation of human right, it develops an essential need to establish guidelines in the attempt to protect patient’s rights and privacy. Furthermore, due to the alternatives that arise throughout this case, there are many possible outcomes to be considered that could have a significant impact on stakeholders if these courses of action are fallowed. These solutions consequences may involve the tentative research, an advance way of life for the Lack’s family, political turmoil, economic health impact and a society whose cells may have similar experience.

Henrietta Lacks was born on August 1, 1920 in Roanoke, Virginia. Henrietta’s mother passed away in 1924. She was sent to live with her grandfather. Henrietta shared a room with her first cousin David. They had their first son, Lawrence in 1935 when she was fourteen. Then they had their first daughter in 1939, Elsie, who was disabled. Henrietta and David then moved to Maryland and had three more children, David Jr., Deborah, and Joseph.

Henrietta Lacks was a strong-willed, compassionate women that had a love for life. She always put her family first, not only her immediate family but her extended family as well. She never complained, worked hard and fought up until her death. She was humbled and lived a selfless life.

Legacy has been a goal for many because it supersedes even death. It is the one thing that everyone wants to leave behind. No matter the size, whether grand or small, a legacy is a person’s aim because it involves becoming someone that will be remembered. Some may spend their entire lives seeking out a legacy that will allow them to be remembered by many. Others do the same but to be only remembered by those dear to them. Some were given the luxury of being born a legacy while others die a legacy. Some take in order to grow a legacy, while others give. However, there are only a few cases in which people are given a legacy without asking for one. Henrietta Lacks is an example of that case. She was unaware of her contributions and how her cells

“I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others” (Korn). Different people have opposing opinions on the topic of whether or not patients or doctors own the body tissues after it’s been removed from the patient. Ownership is the act, state, or right of possessing something. Tissue ownership is different from ownership because once it leaves your body, you no longer own it. Contributing your tissues to the science world is superior because you can speed up medical advances, avoid litigation, and become a better individual by contributing to science and society.

Although some may argue that the doctor’s actions were unethical, there were no laws in place; hence, the doctors did not really commit a crime. On top of that, Gey was not the only doctor or researcher of that time who took cells without consent. If this is the case, should not the other uninformed patients, whose tissues or cells were removed but did not contribute to science as much as Henrietta’s did be compensated as well? Only because Henrietta Lacks’s cells resulted in a paramount discovery, many advocate for the need to repay monetarily. Additionally, the ruling that when tissues are removed from one’s body--with or without consent--any ownership of the organs disappears further highlights the lack of need to compensate financially. This controversial ruling allows a larger supply of cells to work

Since 1920, a scientist named George Gey, and his wife, Margaret Gey, had been working in their lab at Johns Hopkins to grow malignant cells outside of the body. They wanted to create the first immortal cells (continuously dividing lines of cells that would constantly replenish themselves and never die). What Henrietta and her family didn’t know, was that when a biopsy of her tumour was sent to the pathology lab, the tissue was never thrown out afterwards. After being looked at by a pathologist, Henrietta’s biopsy was then given to George Gey on February 8th, 1951. At Gey’s laboratory, one of the workers there named Mary Kubicek, placed cells obtained from Henrietta’s biopsy specimen into cell culture. Throughout the past years, Gey had been

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

In the photo of Henrietta and David Lacks, the photo is expressing a fake front to the audience that Day and Henrietta are ‘happy’ despite their personal struggles with Henrietta’s health and Day’s unfaithfulness. Henrietta’s facial expression is showing a deep sadness as she attempts to smile knowing her medical condition is getting worse, while Day’s facile expression is showing guilt and uncertainty. The facial expressions of both Henrietta and Day are clearly showing on the inside they are fight personal demons and are truly not happy with themselves and each other. The absence of wedding rings are a crucial part in this photo. Showing that Day and Henrietta throughout their relationship have not committed themselves to getting married

Henrietta Lacks lived and died before the Helsinki agreement gave the world guidelines for informed consent in medical research. She had no consent form. She had no idea what was killing her. She didn’t even know she was dying. She lay in pain in the hospital while they scraped her uterine wall and then when they knew the cells were cancerous they kept the cells and sent her home, without giving her any financial help or clear explanation of what would happen to her.

The future of all exploration revolves around science. Science holds the key to some of the human race’s largest challenges and its greatest opportunities. However, the field of science is not immune from its share of shortcomings. Gender and race are the most prominent areas in which the field of science has failed.

There were 884 million doctor’s visits in the US alone in 2014, another 125 million counting hospital visits. It is clear that society trusts the doctors and nurses that it employs to uphold high standards to carry on with the task of saving lives. Our society doesn’t blink an eye and puts all its faith into doctors without question. Society assumes that all doctors are good and ignores the potential of an immoral doctor. A study conducted by the NCBI showed that 90% of all medical students have witnessed an unethical medical practice performed by the doctors that society had trusted. This means that if you had any doctor’s visits in the last few years, most likely you were a victim of an unethical practice. This is the situation that Henrietta Lacks faced at John Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s. Rebecca Skloot details the accounts of mistreatment and abuse that followed Henrietta Lacks in her novel The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta Lacks was an African American mother seeking cancer treatment at John Hopkins Hospitals, who ended up to be one of the biggest medical discoveries at the time. Doctors at the hospital discovered the power of her cells and in doing so abused and misuse Henrietta Lacks in the process, which ultimately led to her death. Although Henrietta Lack’s cells proved to beneficial to millions of people, the misconduct performed by the doctors is uncalled for and violates the oath that every doctor had sworn to. There is no

Throughout medical history, the collecting of human tissue samples has been utilized for many years and has lead to the acceleration of medical knowledge, however, this practice presents a debate about whether it is correct to use human tissue samples. Without legal documentation in place, scientists may exert control over the samples without alerting the patients. The collection and usage of human tissue samples without the patient’s consent has many issues surrounding the moral and ethical attributions of this practice which raises questions about the rights of the patient because without the knowledge of the crime, they would not have legal ownership or control over their tissue.