Importance Of Consent And Its Effects On Medical History

Topic: Choose an aspect of the law and discuss this in relation to the role of the nurse. (Consent)

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

Henrietta Lacks was hospitalized at a time when doctors often lied or withheld information when they felt it best (63). Often information

'Proponents of financial incentives for organ donation assert that a demonstration project is necessary to confirm or refute the types of concerns mentioned above. The American Medical Association, the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for pilot studies of financial incentives. Conversely, the National Kidney Foundation maintains that it would not be feasible to design a pilot project that would definitively demonstrate the efficacy of financial incentives for organ donation. Moreover, the implementation of a pilot project would have the same corrosive effect on the ethical, moral and social fabric of this country that a formal change in policy would have. Finally, a demonstration project is objectionable because it will be difficult to revert to an altruistic system once payment is initiated, even if it becomes evident that financial incentives don 't have a positive impact on organ donation. '(http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03)

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.

Although Henrietta lacks and John Moore have contributed a lot to the science community their stories has raised many ethical issues concerning the privacy and consent of a patient. Similar cases might not occur so often nowadays because we have established laws that protect a patient's privacy and acknowledges them before making any

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.

Doctors were not telling their patients everything and would sugar coat things to make the donation or operation as less scary as posse so they will agree to it. One of the most famous person to get mistreated was Henrietta Lacks or HeLa. She died in her thirties in the mid-nineteenth century but the one thing she and her family had no idea was that scientists and doctors were growing her cells in a laboratory. Henrietta had no idea that her cells were growing in a dish in a laboratory somewhere and that her cells would help change the world by advancing medicine and science for the rest of anyone’s life.(Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.) But there are more than likely millions of cases that ended up like Henrietta but are not as talked about. Patient’s rights is a right that we can not take for granted and make sure people are not taking your tissue without your

Being a doctor requires a lot of hard work and commitment to help others and look for the patient’s well being, but has it always been this way? In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, she claims in paragraph 4 on page 130 that doctors used to withhold information from patients just so they won’t deny the test being made, and this way obtain their wanted benefit. The author’s claim is supported by the events of the patients from jail, Henrietta’s autopsy, and Henrietta’s cells overall.

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

Medicine is a scientific creation that allows people to save the lives of others. In some cases, people give a part of themselves while they are still alive or after death to help the lives of other people. So, is it completely wrong that doctors use the tissues and cells from left over procedures or the findings they seem valuable during procedures without consent for research? Is it wrong that patients and families are not compensated from the miraculous research doctors may or not discover? Doctors everyday are saving the lives of people with the help from cell and tissue research. What seems to be the issue is that people are more irritated by the fact they are not being notified or asked for consent before hand. In a lot of cases, most patients wouldn’t allow the use of their tissues to

“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.

Exploiting patients is also discussed and can be called into question. When presenting examples or discussing patient’s certain information should never be disclosed due to HIPPA laws as well as confidentiality.

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 history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical