Pros And Cons Of Harvesting Cells Without Consent

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

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.

Nevertheless, it should be illegal for a doctor or scientist to take tissue samples of patients without their consent, and it should not be used for research unless the donor knows what is being done with their donated tissue. Doctors’ ethics have not seemed to change much since Henrietta’s surgery, and it seems there are seemingly no problems with taking samples without consent, then or now. Throughout The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, lack of ethics can be seen in various situations. The doctor that performed Henrietta’s surgery, Dr. TeLinde, would use people “Without their knowledge” (Skloot), and to hide his

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.

In 1970, researches started to take cells from Lack’s children without their consent. Lack’s family had lived without healthcare and in poverty, but her cells were generating millions. This lack of informed consent was followed through multiple generations and compensation was never given to any of them. Informed consent if a very important ethical issue in medicine and science. If your cells are being used for research, then it is necessary that you are aware.

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

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:

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

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. Researchers for decades have turned to human tissue samples for some insight and profit on the biological vulnerabilities that have surfaced through out human history. The author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot raises the subject of human tissue samples through her piece on the first immortal cells discovered and the advances it caused in the field of medical science. Unfortunately, the human body is designed in a way where while our biological make up is similar yet sometimes incompatible with one another’s. Catherine Walby, the author of “Biomedicine, Tissue Transfer and Intercorporeality”, discusses the unique identity each individuals tissues hold and the biological limitations not only physically, but psychologically when it comes to organ transplants or other bodily exchanges. Her article expresses the individuality in each individuals tissues and how it’s more than just a biological exchange. To preserve the personhood of human tissues, consent laws then come in to play. David Wendler’s article, “Consent for Research With Biological Samples: One-Time General Consent Versus a Gift Model”, explores the legality of different forms of consent

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

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

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

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.

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.

Stem cells are cells that have the potential to develop into different types of cells in the body. Stem cells also act as a repair system for many tissues in the body by dividing repeatedly to replenish other cells within a person (National Institutes of Health). Stem cell research seeks to further the advancement of the use of stem cells as well as to find an ethical way to study them. In November 1998, researchers found a way to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells, (Bevington 2005). The ethics of stem cell research has been debated over the years and some people fully support the use of stem cells, whereas others are completely against the use of stem cells. This has been an ongoing battle for scientists over the span of two decades prior to the 1998 finding.