preview

Skloot's The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks

Decent Essays

“He told them he was testing their immune systems; he said nothing about injecting them with someone else’s malignant cells” (Skloot 128). This is one of the many incidences in Skloot’s book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, where Skloot argued that medical research and advancements were held at a higher importance than fair treatment and rights of the patients and their families. Henrietta and the Lacks family are just one example. Skloot developed her argument by including information about uninformed consent and the Lacks family, providing examples of instances where doctors took advantage of their patients for their own benefit, and gave information about the Lacks family and their current medical situations. In order to adequately …show more content…

They say they will help with hospital bills and insurance claims and teach their patients and families how to ensure proper care of the patient after hospitalization” (AHA 2). The AHA defines patient’s rights as:
“having the ability to ask questions, knowing the identity and background of caregivers, knowing the type of treatment being performed, knowing whether treatment is being used for research, being informed of long and short term effects, knowing the price of the procedure, having a family member dictate what is done with your body in a dire circumstance, and having the ability to keep medical records private” (AHA 3).
The main way a patient can learn about all of their rights and the ins and outs of their procedure is by signing a consent form. The AHA describes the purpose of a consent form by writing, “this process protects your right to consent or refuse a treatment. Your doctor will explain the medical consequences of refusing recommended treatment. It also protects your right to decide if you want to participate in a research study” (AHA 4). The AHA brochure describing fair treatment and patient’s rights was made in 2003, about fifty years after Henrietta’s case. But most of this seems like common ethics, and people should have upheld these same values then, but because common ethics were not laws in the fifties, what …show more content…

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

Get Access