Landmark Bioethics Cases

In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot asserts that an individual should own the right their own human tissue after it has been removed. Furthermore, several other accounts similar to Henrietta’s situation emphasize the importance of informed consent. Although in some cases, consent forms were signed, these were not informed decisions. As doctors in all of the cases presented have failed to disclose to their patients the value of their bodies. Even though this occurrence may hinder future scientific research, it is possible that the possession of someone’s DNA could ruin the rest of their lives, as it identifies what diseases that they may acquire. Therefore, to ensure the protection of our rights, it is moralistic that individuals

This initial inquiry started a large controversy, evolving to the larger issues that we still have today over cervical and stem cell lines. The core ethical issue, in both the case of stem cell research and in the Henrietta Lacks case, is one of informed consent. Stem cells, particularly those for research purposes, are gathered from embryonic tissue, which begs the question; who gives consent? There are many who hesitate to advocate the use of stem cell research even today, and there are even more individuals who are strongly opposed to such research without the informed consent of the individual.

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

Facts: Texas legislation passed House Bill 2 (H.B. 2) in 2013 which contained various provisions on abortion. A group of abortion providers, including Whole Woman’s Health, sued on the claims that those provisions denied equal protection, unlawful delegation, and used arbitrary and unreasonable state action, while also adding a burden on a woman’s ability to get a legal abortion. The district court dismissed these claims—as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—prior to being appealed to the Supreme Court.

To begin, the author noticed the initial positions of the justices of this case. The first question was whether the case had standing, which Justice Burger believed it didn’t. However, the majority of the justices agreed it did so they moved away from the issue of standing but instead to the issue of

For those who are not familiar with the Bioethics Bowl and are looking for this initial experience to spur a club formation at their respective university, the Bioethics Bowl is a debate style competition revolving around bioethical issues in their nature. These issues include, but by no means are limited to, the extent hospitals or the state can impinge upon the rights of citizens to ensure their safety, the duties of a physician (i.e. is physician assisted suicide compatible with a physician’s hippocratic oath? Should you disobey an advanced directive if you believe there is still a chance at life, despite a family member’s request?), and even human chimera experiments. For more detailed questions, please see the following link for the 2016 Bioethics Bowl Questions http://nubc2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2016-Bioethics-Bowl-Case-Packet.pdf

I choose Henrietta Lacks study case, the HeLa case has raised questions about the legality of using genetic materials without permission. Neither Mrs. Lacks nor her family granted permission to harvest her cells, which were then cloned and sold since the 1950s. Recently, scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory published the genome of a line of HeLa cells, making it publicly available for downloading. Another study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health at the University of Washington, was about to be published in Nature. The Lacks family was made aware of neither project.

Human embryo’s and stem cell research has always been a controversial issue throughout society. Some believe that stem cell research promises future cures for many incurable diseases, whereas others believe that it is immortal to produce human embryo’s that are ultimately going to be thrown away and used as biological material. The nature of the embryonic stem cell debate is whether or not humanity should proceed with destroying human embryos for reasons such as learning about human development, discovering medical treatments, and testing drugs for pharmaceutical companies. Embryonic stem cell research poses two moral problems including the duty to prevent or eliminate suffering, and the duty to respect the value of human life. This essay will show the Natural Law’s views on this topic as well as the opposing views of Utilitarianism.

It was a hectic afternoon. John rushed to get to the next appointment on the other side of town. After a regular checkup, nerve testing, breathing checks, and a taken sample of DNA, the doctor told John that he may go. A couple of months after the appointment, John discovered that a gene was modified deriving from the sample of DNA given at the doctor’s office and the value was tremendous. What can be done now that it has happened? In “Taking the Least of You” and “Deal done over HeLa cell line,” the authors discuss situations surrounding research profit, including cases that have reached the Supreme Court, and how it has become an issue for patients who believe that research access and profit potential should be controlled. Both articles contain arguments that limit the usage of tissues and cells in terms of research.

This quote by Galileo Galilei directly relates to the boundaries of bioethics and who should decide them. While some people may assume that scientists might abuse and use the boundaries for their own good, certified scientists should be able to decide boundaries for bioethics because they are knowledgeable and are specialized in handling the bioethical boundaries.

What might a person in your career see from a person with this disorder? (How would the symptoms manifest in your particular setting? This question requires you to apply the symptomology of the disorder to your particular field.)

will have to re-examine the legal status of the human embryo. Many of the case that have generated legal rules on

Before the realm of science was widely accepted, ethical debates were still very much prevalent in all aspects of life. More recently, with the introduction of new science and more research about the genetic code, we have added to our ethical debate “plate” in ways that could change the way humans live and grow entirely. Whether or not this type of power should be tampered with, falls under the realm of Bioethics. Bioethics is the general study of anything that can be argued ethical or unethical in the realm of life. Questions regarding Bioethics began surrounding everyday things such as applying for jobs and criminal investigations. Questions such as, “should scientists be able to take cells for research from patients without permission” and “should humans be used for medical and psychological studies”? These Bioethics became largely challenged when presented with questions about what we should do with Stem Cells, Cloning, Artificial Chromosomes and the like. However, with new diseases and new scientific findings the need for new forms of medication is on the rise. Doctors in this day and age are always expected to be finding the answers to the latest most threatening diseases on the planet. People even look to them to cure things in their body that cannot be cured. A lot of times we can do some amazing things with modern medicine so it is only natural to think we are capable of much more. Interestingly, with recent studies in ideas such as the use of Stem Cells and

One of the first ethical violations in tissue procurement is in the story of Henrietta Lacks. In 1951, as a patient at John Hopkins undergoing a biopsy, her diseased tissue cells were taken directly from her without consent or knowledge of how those cells were to be handles. Those cells turned out to be indestructible and were used to advance medicine in miraculous ways. The unbelievable amount of good that came from her cells is undeniable, but at what cost? Many believe her family should have profited from her cells, just as the researchers, private companies and doctors had done so for many years (Margonelli, 2010).

The bioethics case study that was assigned to me is about a tricky court case between two individuals, Junior and Mary who just got divorced. Before Junior and Mary got divorced they had infertility problems which led them to undergo the process of in vitro fertilization, the process resulted in nine embryos, two were implanted, but failed in developing. Now, Junior and Mary are both competing for the ownership of the embryos left frozen. Both parties have lawyers, Junior wanted the embryos just to destroy them and Mary wanted to implant the embryos. The in vitro fertilization is considered as one of reasons that led to their divorce. Junior’s lawyer claimed that