Pros And Cons Of Harvesting Cells Without Consent

Scenario 1: You are in a patient’s room performing a treatment. The patient, who has a type of cancer that is always fatal, has just been told of his condition. While you are there, a man visiting a patient in the next bed begins to describe the horror of his wife’s last days before she died of cancer. The patient becomes increasingly tense and finally begins to sob. Answer the following questions:

The thought of being an immortal may be something that mankind can never understand or figure out, after all science can only go so far. No human has ever been an immortal, as for a human’s cells that is a different story. In 1951 there was a young black lady

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.

As research and technology progress forward in time, the ethical considerations that must be taken along with, not only method of study but social ramifications continues to grow exponentially. At the time when cells were taken unknowingly from Mrs. Lacks, there were not strict regulatory guidelines as to how consent should be required along with many other now ill-practice methods of medicine seen at the time. Despite agreeing that the

The concept of informed consent that we have today did not exist in the 1950s when Henrietta’s cells were obtained. Patients were regularly used in research without their knowledge. Nevertheless, some doctors had unethical standards. Dr. Chester Southam, a credible researcher of cancer, developed a theory that “the cancer was caused by either a virus or an immune system deficiency” (Skloot 128) and the bodies of patients’ who had suffered with cancer in the past would reject the HeLa cells. He tested the patients and “he said nothing about injecting them with someone else’s malignant cells” (Skloot 128). Southam believed that revealing details to patients would create a “phobia and ignorance” (Skloot 130) in their mind. He injected “more than six hundred people for his research, about half of them cancer patients” (Skloot 129), telling them “he was testing their immune systems” (Skloot 128). Southam expanded with his experiments on testing

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

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

However, the consent of subjects is enforced by the respect for the individuals used in research and the bioethicists that police peer-reviewed articles. A small hope has sprung forth from possible enforceable regulations that would require permission for the use of all human blood and tissue used in research. This has been proposed by the federal government. Sadly, neither the current standing nor the possible future of required consent is very well known in the general population. The lack of concern when it comes to these issues by the general population can be attributed to a simple problem, lack of knowledge.

The Importance of Personhood in Human Tissue Samples In a world with over billions of people, it’s astounding to think that biologically, we are all so different, yet so alike. As generations pass, our biological design evolves and new health risks arise, which require new cures to be discovered.

b. Allow the family to stay with the patient and briefly explain all procedures to

3. Ask yourself, if the patient died tomorrow, what would the physician list as the cause of death on the death certificate?

While many people say they should have their own say over their cells, scientist always retort, stating that it would interfere with science if patients did indeed control what happened to their cells after they have been sampled. This popular topic gets even more complex when money is concerned. However, when money is involved the patient should get some compensation if their tissues or cells did something drastically crucial for scientists. Otherwise, there is already a law in place that the doctor must get consent to gather samples from patients.

Historically, in medical research, researchers have taken patients cells or organs and used them for research without their consent. Occasionally there are connections with a lack of consent and the economic, social and educational ranking of the patient being used for medical research. There have been trends that show the medical community has taken advantage of the less educated, they may not understand what is happening and/or all the risks involved. Consent should be required at the same level for all patients regardless of their status in society or level of education.

Michael Connor 8/19/15 Consent for Newborn Bloodspot Research As most parents or medical students may be aware of, newborn infants have blood samples taken shortly after birth. Their heels are pricked and blood is sptted onto a paper which is sent for processing at a state level. These programs have