Persuasive Essay On Tissue Lacks

The truth is the doctors that took Henrietta’s cells were doing it for a good cause. They didn’t do it to ruin her and her family’s life, they did it to help people and save lives. There were no laws prohibiting the taking of one’s cells, in fact in a later Supreme Court of California ruling, it was actually defended. When tissues are removed from your body, with or without consent, any claim to ownership

The main ethical issues in this case is that researches at Johns Hopkins Hospital used Henrietta’s cell in multiple researches and send her cells to other researchers around the world without her family’s consent. Moreover, the Lackes themselves were used in medical research without informed consent, and Henrietta’s medical records were release to journalists without her family knowing.

In the example with the HeLa cells, a great debate was raised when the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was published. The debate centered around the lack of information of where the cells came from, who should have known about the original harvesting, and the lack of compensation for Henrietta’s family once the cells started generating income. Also discussed was the tendency of the medical community to

Henrietta Lacks died in 1951 of cervical cancer, leaving behind a husband, five children and some cells taken from her without her permission. These cells continue to revolutionize the scientific field today and have played an integral role in some of the most important advances in medicine: cloning, chemotherapy, gene mapping, the polio vaccine and in vitro fertilization. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks answers a lot of questions regarding the Lacks family, but also poses a number of questions regarding ethics, consent and how far society is willing to go to make medical advances.

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.

There were many researchers involved in learning about cells and their basic function. In order to do this, tissue samples were taken from patients to examine. However, in the past there weren’t many laws regarding informed consent and patient confidentiality. In my opinion, the Gold/Moore case is different than what Dr. Gey did with Henrietta Lack’s cells. Gold and Gey had very different incentives. Dr. Gey was a tissue researcher whose aim was to create an immortal line of human cells to be used for medical research. Gey had spent 30 years prior to the discovery of Henrietta’s immortal cells, working to grow malignant cells outside of the human body. His goal was to find the cause and cure of cancer.

Neither Lacks nor her family gave her physician permission to harvest the cells. At that same time, however, permission was neither required nor usually sought. (Washington, 1994) In the early 1970’s, the family of Henrietta Lacks began getting

Bobette met a research scientist who said he had been working with cells from a woman named Henrietta Lacks, Bobette’s reaction can be seen here, “But Bobette kept shaking her head saying, ‘how come nobody told her family part of her was still alive?’ ‘I wish I knew’ he said. Like most researchers, he’d never thought about whether the woman behind the HeLa cells had given them voluntarily’” (Skloot 180). The research scientist she talked to, along with countless other scientists, had never thought about the woman behind the cells and this is part of the reason nobody ever told the family about the cells. Bobette finally found out about the HeLa cells after twenty-five years of no information and a revolution in medicine caused by her late mother-in-law. But it did not get better for the Lacks family after discovering Henrietta’s cell line. Every time one of the Lackses asked questions about Henrietta’s cells, the professionals would never take time to answer their questions, to help them understand what had happened at Johns Hopkins with the cells, or to explain to the Lackses what Henrietta’s cells accomplished. The doctors did not care about the patients and their families, but more about what was in it for them. The doctors did not look at the situation ethically by not telling the family about the cells. They also violated privacy values, which are now rights. They

Henrietta Lacks case was different than Mississippi and Tuskegee in some ways. In Henrietta’s case the doctors took her cells from her cervix but like in the Mississippi and Tuskegee cases they took them without Henrietta’s permission and launched a multimillion-dollar medical industry after she died. The purpose of taking Henrietta’s cells was to just run a couple tests until they died but they ended up living and growing. Instead of telling Henrietta and her family what they have been doing the doctors kept the discovery to themselves. When the discovery of the immortal cells because known every doctor got their hands on them and started running experiments on them, sending the cells to space, running test on the cells to find a cure to aids and cervical cancer etc…

In 1951, Henrietta Lacks had cells removed from her body without her permission, since then there have been many changes in the way medical researchers get their information. For example, medical researchers today need to obtain consent from the individuals and the parents of children from whom they are performing biomedical tests on as well as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). In addition, in 1996 the United States introduced (“HIPPA Regulations”) that offer data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. In the case of Henrietta Lacks and her HeLa cells, her rights and her privacy did not exist, so new policies and laws paved the way to help protect the rights of

The cells were kept alive long enough to allow the researchers to go in depth with studies and examinations. The ethical issue was, like stated before, that the Lacks family did not give physicians permission to take samples of her cells. But during that time permission was not required and that is why they were able to take the samples. In the court case of California v. Regents of UC in 1990 it was ruled that a person’s discarded tissue was not their property and could be used. The ethical concerns are still around today because recently researchers published their results and this affected the family. Things like lack of respect for the Lacks, just and even race and social class come into the conversation because of the use of her tissue without her consent.

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.

“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.

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