We have known the amazing benefits of human tissue in medical research. These cells have helped with some of the most important advances in the sciences. They are used to develop vaccines for rabies, smallpox, and measles or used for radiation, drugs, cosmetics and viruses research which launched a million dollar industry [ Skloot, 316]. They have been used to find the cure for multibillion people, including most of us today. However, not that many people know where are these tissues come from or the stories of the “donors” who were desperate to protect their bodily rights and property rights. Most of the patients in the late 1950s have not been asked if they want to contribute their tissues to science, which has raised the debate over …show more content…
(2) Whether the people whose made the cells or the scientists who developed the cells into valuable products own the cells? This is a complex issue which no body of laws, policies or ethics applied directly. No U.S statutes or judicial precedents have specifically indicated the ownership over human tissues and cells.
The informed consent and the disclosure of potential cells that could be developed into a commercial product is to respect research subject’s autonomy. It's a way to ask whether they want to participate in the study. As technology progresses, the people who are affected by the researches increased. “ Because of the power of genetics, you can study these materials and find out secrets about a person and his or her relatives,” says Arthur L.Capian,director of the Center Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia [Strauss, 190]. Science now has the ability to identify genes from a single cell, it was no longer using tissue scraps for experiments-it was that someone could uncover the research subjects’s genetic information and violate their privacy and their children’s privacy. In 1976, John Moore’s case doctor,David Golde has used his cell to develop, market and patent a cell line called MO. Patenting cell lines did not require informing or getting permission from the “donors” during that
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be
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.
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?
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.
John Moore lost the lawsuit against David Golde, according to the judge he had no right “to ownership interest in the patent - he was not one of the inventors. Nor, it concluded, could a patient exercise property rights over discarded body tissues.” (von der Ropp & Taubman, 2006). The loss of the lawsuit by Moore caused a lot of media attention and again a big ethical discussion in science. As previously said, this story also highlighted the importance of ethical and ownership laws in medical research.
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.
Currently in New Zealand the major law regarding the donation of organs is the Human Tissue Act 2008 introduced by the then labour government’s Minister of Health David Cunliffe. The bill received support from both Labour and National members and in its second reading received 115 votes for and only 3 votes against (while 3 members were not present for the vote) the three votes against can be attributed to opposition from 3 of the 4 Maori party members due to cultural values tikanga ā-iwi, Mana and Tapu
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.
The concentration of dissolved substances is less in the extracellular fluid than in the cytoplasm. Hypotonic Solution Concentration of dissolved substances (solute) Concentration of water (solvent) What happens to an animal cells? Inside the cell Greater Less Outside the cell Less Greater Membrane
Consent to do anything to someone else’s property is necessary for almost all other circumstances and should be applied in this situation. If not stated in the consent form, patients should explicitly have the rights to say what happens to their cells. As a result of being given rights to their cells, donors may be more willing to donate. Being able to dictate over what happens to a piece of them may encourage many to donate rather than have the opposite effect. Even when consent forms are signed, many patients do not recognize the importance of their tissue for research. Due to this, in the cases of several patients, they do not become aware of the importance of their tissue until much later. In the case of Mo and HeLa cells, their doctors had made their cells into multi-billion dollar industries, even though the patients had not explicitly consented to the for-profit companies created around their cells. To protect Americans from having their rights violated like in these instances, it is necessary that patients be granted the rights to their own
OWNERSHIP OF CELLS RAISES STICKY ISSUES … WHO SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS TO A PATIENT’S CELLS? … WHO TOLD YOU YOU COULD SELL MY SPLEEN? (Skloot, Rebecca Scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers debated the issues: some called for legislation that would make it illegal for doctors to take patients’ cells or commercialize them without consent and the disclosure of potential profits; others argued that doing so would create a logistical nightmare that would put an end to medical progress.(Skloot, Rebecca (2010-01-28). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (p. 204). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle
“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.
In this assignment I’m going to talk about the structure of the main tissues which are found within the body as well as what their role is in the terms of two named organs of the body. Tissues are a collection of similar cells that group together to carry out a specific function within the body. There are four different types of tissue found in the human body which include; epithelial tissue; connective tissue; muscle tissue and nerve tissue.
Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.
For the next 50 years, donating one’s body for scientific cadaver use would become more acceptable and commonplace. However, it wasn’t until 1882 that a medical institution, the Chicago College of Physicians and Surgeons, would offer a curriculum that incorporated cadaver dissection (Perry & Kuehn, 2006). It wouldn’t be until 1918 that an organization, The Anatomical Gift Association of Illinois, would manage the body donation program for medical research and educational institutions (The Anatomical Gift Association of Illinois, 2013).