Human Biological Material ( Hbm )

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.

The art of medicine and curing diseases was not always approached in a scientific way. In fact, many advances occurred between 1919 to 1939, after technological advances allowed scientists to apply the scientific method to medical research. At this time, the ethics of using patients as test subjects either for new medicines or as samples for further testing were not considered. An extreme example of this was the Nazi’s using concentration camp inmates – including children – to run painful and invasive experiments. More modern examples are not so easy to identify as unethical, however. While amputating a leg to develop methods to deal with fractures and war wounds is obviously unethical, harvesting cells to develop a vaccine is not so clear cut, as the disadvantage to the patient is hard to identify. Coming from the various Nazi testing and especially the Nuremberg testing and trials, another code of ethics was developed, called the Nuremberg Code.

The social contract of nursing is important because it reflects the nursing's code of ethics, which is to provide care to all who are in need, regardless of their cultural, social, or economic standing. The social contract exists because we rely on a guideline to continue to provide ethical care that is within our scope of practice. Unfortunately, in Rebecca Skloot’s (2010) book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” there were many ethical violations throughout the whole process about the Henrietta Lacks’ cells (HeLa). The author reveals the story about the life of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman who was diagnosed with a fast-growing cervical cancer at a young age. The cells retrieved from her cervical tumor became the first immortal cell that could survive in the lab and replicate continuously without dying. Without the consent of Henrietta Lacks and her family, these cells later became key components to the development of many groundbreaking inventions such as the polio vaccine and in vitro fertilization. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the social covenant of nursing in relation to the ethical issues behind the use of the HeLa cells without the patient’s and her family’s consent.

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?

They thought the doctors were still trying to fix her,” (Skloot 65). Henrietta’s family is still being treated poorly today, being lied to and never got a profit from the cells. “’She’s the most important person in the world and her family living in poverty. If our mother so important to science, why can’t we get health insurance?’”(Skloot 168). In fact, Henrietta herself is one of the major reasons the debate on whether it should be legal to cell organs and cells is a debate today. “HeLa cells as the springboard to launch the first industrial-scale for-profit cell distribution center,” (Skloot 101). Although there are several arguments in the debate over selling body parts, three key arguments deal with the topics of money, helping others, and personal choice. Considering all of the topics, the selling of body parts for profit should be

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.

Once Henrietta Lacks gained enough courage to admit herself to Johns Hopkins and receive what she thought was normal medical treatment for what ultimately turned out to be cancer of the cervix, speculated to have been caused by HPV given to her from her abusive husband, the struggle of her ailment became unknowingly at the time the cure for millions of people and the legal and ethical issues developed. The legal issues at hand were did Dr. Gey steal Henrietta’s cells for personal gain to have his lifelong dream of duplicating cells literally come to life? How did Johns Hopkins as the institution profit from

In the novel, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” by Rebecca Skloot, the collection and use of human tissue sampling is a controversy that is repeatedly referred to throughout the entirety of the book, especially in the Afterword. In the the Afterword, the author summarizes each side of this debate and their reasonings. After analyzing both sides, it is evident that people should be given legal ownership and control over their tissues. For one, it is their body and they have the right to know where their tissues are going and what is going to be done to them. Tissue rights activists assert that “donors should have the right to say, for example, that they don’t want their tissues used for research on nuclear weapons, abortion, racial differences, intelligence, or

Rebecca Skloot’s, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” brings forth the story of a black woman, Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta was one of ten kids raised on a tobacco farm by her grandfather, Tommy Lacks, and married her half-brother David ‘Day’ Lacks. Before Henrietta died in 1951, doctors diagnosed her with cervical cancer and a malignant tumor at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the only hospital in the Baltimore area that accepted black patients. This story focused on how doctors at Johns Hopkins, particularly George Gey, the head of tissue-culture research at Johns Hopkins, took advantage of Henrietta. Before her death, doctors biopsied a portion of her cervical tumor and harvested the cancerous tissues. When researcher cultured these tissues, they discovered the cells had hearty, unusual qualities that allowed them to grow almost anywhere, with relative ease that was unheard of in the early stages of the field of cell production. Once researchers realized these qualities, people took steps to ensure her cells, called HeLa by researchers, could be purchased by anyone around the world. After her death, these cells were the backbone of many scientific discoveries around the world such as the vaccine for polio and the realization of HPV. However, Skloot questions whether or not these doctors ever had the right to take these cells from Henrietta without her permission, let alone sell them to researchers around the world. Rebecca Skloot analyzed the story of Henrietta’s HeLa cells,

When Henrietta Lacks found a lump in her cervix; she went to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland to sought for help. Doctor Howard Jones did a biopsy on the mass that was taken from Henrietta’s cervix, and he diagnosed her with stage one cervix cancer. Her cell culture and tumor was used for growing human cells outside of the body in Gey’s lab and the HeLa specimen is the one and only that work. This experiment has changed history forever and her cells was sent to labs around the world without Henrietta’s consent. It is unacceptable and unethical for them to use patients for research without their permission. The actions of George Gey’s and Johns Hopkins Hospital make us question their professional ethics which is also the reoccurring

Informed consent should be legally required Having a voice in a conversation means possessing the right or power to make a decision about something. It is shocking how people are still left in the dark not knowing what really happens to their cell, tissues, or blood after they are removed. In the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot, the author tells the story about the experiences of the Lack’s family and Henrietta’s journey leading to the discovery of her immortal cells which later became known as HeLa cells. The privacy of patients should be confidential and not be shared without their written consent. Doctors’ practices on patients should be changed for several reasons, such as the safety for the privacy of the

Innovations and scientific advances in the 20th century brought about further knowledge of genes and genetics, and later of how diseases interact with human cells. This level of scientific progress was unprecedented, and the medical and biological ethics going along with the science needed time to catch up. From the 1950s with the collection of HeLa cells to the early 2000s with Dr. Catalona, there has been debate over who owns tissue samples taken from human beings. This paper presents an argument for a limited ownership of tissue samples.

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

In 1951, doctors took cell samples from an African American cancer patient named Henrietta Lacks without her knowledge or consent, and these cells became the first immortal cell line to be grown in a laboratory, leading to pivotal advancements in medicine, genetics, and cell culture. Rebecca Skloot tells the Lackses’ experiences with medical malpractice in her book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. The bestseller has become widely known for its unwavering devotion to delivering the facts truthfully. Skloot’s honest portrayal of the story sheds light on unethical medical research and human experimentation in the mid to late twentieth century caused by scientists abusing the trust and privacy of their patients.

Currently the stolen HeLa cells go for $10,000 a vial (Svalastog, 400). In the 1950s Henrietta Lacks had no idea her ovarian tumor was stolen from her and sold for research purposes. She died soon after they were taken due to the aggressiveness of the tumor growth, but her family has continued to live in poverty, even though millions of vials have been sold for research. Her cells have helped fuel over 60,000 scientific article, yet none of the people who has profited on them have been willing to give the family a penny (Svalastog, 400). John L Moore’s spleen was taken during his treatment’s for leukemia. Cells from his spleen, named Mo cells, have been sold for over 3 billion dollars since 2001. Moore fought the University of California all the way to the California Supreme Court, and he was still denied compensation for his spleen that he paid the doctors at the medical center there remove. These two cases are far from isolated, but showcase how big of a problem there is with patients’ rights to their tissue, even though it would be simple to address the issue of tissue rights simply by starting with a consent