The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks By Rebecca Skloot

“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” is the story of Hela cells and the women and family behind them. HeLa cells are the cells that have helped scientists all around the world discover cures and vaccines that have saved thousands of lives. But before they did all those things, they were inside a woman, named Henrietta Lacks, and were taken from her without her knowledge. Her family would not know about her cells until years after her death and millions of dollars in revenue gained from the HeLa cells. At the time doctors did what was considered common practice but did they cross a line? Or were the amazing scientific achievements enough to excuse the violation of personal privacy? Despite good intentions doctors should never have taken Henrietta’s cells without her consent, and furthermore her family deserves compensation for the work those cells have helped accomplish, and the sometimes horrible circumstances they have had to deal with because of the cells.

Clearly, these researchers had their own agenda to acquire a medical breakthrough that would change the history of science and contribute to the greater good of society. However, their authority was used in an unwarranted manner to accomplish their goals, regardless of their respectable intentions in wanting to make medical progress. In reviewing these researchers and medical practitioners’ actions during the 1950’s which entails series of unethical behaviors and violation of human right, it develops an essential need to establish guidelines in the attempt to protect patient’s rights and privacy. Furthermore, due to the alternatives that arise throughout this case, there are many possible outcomes to be considered that could have a significant impact on stakeholders if these courses of action are fallowed. These solutions consequences may involve the tentative research, an advance way of life for the Lack’s family, political turmoil, economic health impact and a society whose cells may have similar experience.

The social contract of nursing is important because it reflects the nursing's code of ethics, which is to provide care to all who are in need, regardless of their cultural, social, or economic standing. The social contract exists because we rely on a guideline to continue to provide ethical care that is within our scope of practice. Unfortunately, in Rebecca Skloot’s (2010) book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” there were many ethical violations throughout the whole process about the Henrietta Lacks’ cells (HeLa). The author reveals the story about the life of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman who was diagnosed with a fast-growing cervical cancer at a young age. The cells retrieved from her cervical tumor became the first immortal cell that could survive in the lab and replicate continuously without dying. Without the consent of Henrietta Lacks and her family, these cells later became key components to the development of many groundbreaking inventions such as the polio vaccine and in vitro fertilization. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the social covenant of nursing in relation to the ethical issues behind the use of the HeLa cells without the patient’s and her family’s consent.

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?

When Henrietta signs the form, she is unaware of the types of procedures that doctors can perform under her “consent” or the damaging effects the operation could have on her body, seeing as doctors never clarified the possible side effects of her procedure. In reference to Henrietta’s treatment, the author states, “Toward the end of her treatments, Henrietta asked her doctor when she'd be better so she could have another child. Until that moment, Henrietta didn't know that the treatments had left her infertile”. Furthermore, this quote demonstrates the harmful effects of poor communication between patient and doctor, in that Henrietta had been ill-informed of possible side effects before the operation. In addition, if Henrietta had been aware of this knowledge, she may have opted for a different treatment plan or refused treatment, which may have changed the outcome considerably. While Henrietta did sign the consent form agreeing to any necessary procedures, she never imagined that her cells would be used to create a multi-million dollar industry for research, all without the knowledge or consent of her or her family. While consent forms today still contain minor flaws, they have improved greatly since Henrietta’s time to ensure the patient’s rights are

The conversation of consent to medical research of one’s tissues is critical due to the increasing number of discoveries in the field of medicine. In the 1950s, Johns Hopkins Hospital encountered one example of an ethical problem regarding education in the realm of medical research. Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks does well in elaborating on this conflict. This true story involves an African American woman who, while undergoing treatment for cervical cancer, has her cells extracted from her without permission. Skloot achieves a more personal level of the story by describing the lives of Henrietta’s children, then and now, in addition to the story of Henrietta herself. Unfortunately, the Lacks family had a poor

Her cells were taken and back then in the twentieth century, colored people had no say in anything they do which is obviously unfair. Researchers such as David Kroll say that, “ Hela cells would be worth around $10,000,” (Kroll 12). Henrietta and her family really needed the money. In Henrietta’s condition it is unethical to compensate study participants in research studies because they took her cells without her consent. In her condition where she was living in poverty and was undereducated, it is absolutely unfair for her and her family. They used her Hela cells without her consent and get no money for it. Henrietta Lack’s cells were taken back then and she had no say in anything, which is unfair. You would not want to let someone use your Cells without your consent and without getting at least some money back for these rare cells. So it is unethical to compensate study participants in research studies. In the medical field in the twentieth century, it was a tough time. They ere trying to find medical cures that would be useful. Henrietta Lack’s Cells will change the world. Her cells have been used in vaccinations to treat polio and many other medical illnesses. Ethics began and the medical research advancements and Henrietta Lacks was sadly a victim of unethical

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a prime example in modern society of the rights and policies surrounding informed consent and privacy. Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman whose cancer cells were biopsied from her body, tested, and resulted in several medical breakthroughs. She gave life to immortal cancer cells known as HeLa cells, which resulted in vaccines for polio, cloning, vitro fertilization, and gene mapping. During the 1950s, not many African Americans had access to proper care, much less, had the background and literacy to understand medical jargon, based on this Henrietta Lacks was never able to provide proper consent. The legalities of what happened all those years, and the turnover in what her personal cells did for science is discussed heavily. The positions held on the mandate for informed consent and specimen privacy will be divulged.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot is a book that documents the author’s firsthand conversations and experiences with the Lacks family about their deceased relative, Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta had a unique type of cervical cancer, and before she passed away, doctors removed some of her cells without telling her. Those cells were later named HeLa and used to advance scientific research. HeLa also created a source of profit both directly and indirectly for scientists and mass producers of the cell line. In this book, the author aims to educate its readers on medical and scientific ethics, to argue against a researcher, scientist, or doctor’s ability to extract tissues from a person without consent.

P#1 Doctors and Hospitals prey on the weakness of their patients in order to do experiments. In the book of Henrietta Lacks she was diagnosed with cancer and went to Hopkins hospital to get treatment but instead they took her cells and did research and gave them to other scientists who made millions off of Henrietta cells . These cells helped find vaccine for polio and treatment for sexually transmitted disease. (“Rebecca” )Since she was poor and only reached to 6 grade education they did not give her accurate information of their hospital service . John Hopkins thought that they can do whatever they want to do with their patients since they were the only hospital that treated African American for free . In Alabama 1932, the Public Health

In the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot, the family of Henrietta is never given true Justice. Justice is fair treatment. When righteousness, equitableness, and respect is shown that is true justice. Religion, race, or gender should never affect how a person should be treated, they deserve to be given equal justice to any other person. The Lacks family never received justice. Therefore, they were never informed that John Hopkins toke Henrietta's cells and they never knew that they would be so helpful to science. At the time Henrietta’s cells were taken, there was no law for informing or obtaining consent from cell donors. Until years later did the family of Henrietta find out that the famous HeLa cells were not Helen Lane’s or Helen Larson’s cells, but they were Henrietta Lacks Cells. Since the family of Henrietta never got the recognition they deserved and never made any money off of her cells, they never got the justice they deserved.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks focuses on many issues that Henrietta and her family have faced over the years resulting from the discovery of HeLa cells. One such issue that was recurrently present was the ethical issue of informed consent, or the lack of it, in the Lacks’ case. In the beginning when Henrietta was first being treated with radium to kill her cancerous tumor, her primary doctor, Dr. TeLinde, took a sample of the tissue and sent it to Dr. Gey, head of tissue

It illustrates the struggle between morals and advancing science. The scientists should not need to get permission to use the cells of a human being if the research uses cells because scientists use their research to learn more about the world, use their research to help society maintain their health, and it may give the public hope for a solution. For instance, cells

The Ethical Issues in the Henrietta Lacks Case The Henrietta Lacks case is one that not many people are aware of. Henrietta was an African American woman, born in 1920, whose cancer cells were used for research without her knowledge. ("Henrietta Lacks bio," n.d.) Is it ethically acceptable to remove someone's cells and widely disperse it for advancements in medical research? Henrietta Lacks was unknowingly one of the most important people in history for her cancer cells that were used to form the HeLa cells.

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.