Think of a time when someone was fraudulent towards you, when someone was deceitful with their intentions and did not care about your needs, your feelings or your well-being. All they cared about was them getting ahead in life and using you to get there. Well once upon a time in 1951 this happened to a very important woman in medical history. Her name was Henrietta Lacks. Her cells were taken from her and sold for medical research without her or any of her family members knowing anything about it. This caused a great deal of trouble for her loved ones because even after she passed her cells were still alive and they still are to this day. In the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks Rebecca Skloot tells the unbelievable story of Miss Henrietta Lacks and how informed consent was not used to get her cells. Instead, they were just taken like they were not once a part of her body. Back then informed consent was not taken seriously, but as time passed and things began to get crazy with the use of patients for medical research it gradually got better and even though it has changed, I believe it needs to be more detailed to ensure that not one patient ever gets deceived again.
To begin, to those who may wonder what informed consent is, it is a legal and ethical prerequisite for clinical research on humans (Bristol, par 2). The purpose of informed consent is to ensure that patient autonomy is respected in decisions about their healthcare (Susilo, 1). Many people say that the term was first used in 1957. There was a malpractice case with Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. The California Supreme court stated that no patient can submit to a medical intervention without having given “informed consent”. Even though the courts had said this, inf...
... middle of paper ...
...amily went through obstacles all because they were being deceived and being used for tests and experiments that were only beneficial to people other than themselves it did advance the medical world in many ways. However, that does not mean they did not have to be informed of such matters. I believe everyone should have the right to know what is going on with parts of them because it is a part of them. Informed consent was not taken seriously in the past but as more people started to realize how harmful it can be for patients to not be informed of risks and what the results of their procedures or tests would be used for, it began to improve and even though the process still isn’t at the best of its ability, I do believe it can get there in the future if people suggest what they think should be changed to improve it to the heads of the health departments in the U.S.
All I can say is amazing information of your glorious and late Henrietta Lacks. This incedible women bettered our society in ways no common human could understand at the time because of how complex this matter was and still very much indeed is. I know there is much contraversy with the matter of how scientists achived immortal cells from your late relative, and I do strongly agree with the fact that it was wrong for these researches to take advantage of this incredible women, but I know it is not for me to say nonethless it must be said that even though it was wrong to take Lacks’ cells when she was dying sometimes one must suffer to bring joy to the entire world.
Without them, we would be decades behind because the average person would not find signing away a piece of their body acceptable. Skloot brings up a case where a man sues a scientist for doing research on his removed spleen without his consent. The author states that those in favor of research said it “…would ‘create chaos for reseachers’ and ‘[sound] the death kneel to the university physician-scientist’. They called it ‘a threat to the sharing of tissue for research purposes,’ and worried that patients would block the progress of science by holding out for excessive profits, even with cells that weren’t worth millions…” (203). The concern shown from the quote was that with extensive limitations on research and tight ethical codes, the information found would be inadequate at best. On one hand, you do need to be honest with the patient, but for the cost of so many lives, there needs to be a balance of creating breakthroughs and appeasing those who matter in the situation. In regards to Henrietta, she did sign a document to have any medical procedure done that was deemed necessary by her doctors. With that being said, she did unknowingly give away some of her rights as a
At first glance, the harvesting of cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks ' tumor seemed like no big deal. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks reports many examples of violations of the Lackses’ privacy, such as the retrieval of her cancer cells, and being misinformed about her inability to have children after treatment. After Henrietta’s death, Skloot describes Mary Kubicek being asked to assist with Henrietta’s autopsy to retrieve more cells. Skloot describes Mary’s reaction, “When I saw toenails …I thought, Oh jeez, she’s a real person… it hit me for the first time that those cells we’d been working with all this time and sending all over the world, they came from a live woman. I’d never thought of it that way” (Skloot, 2010, page 91). When Mary is confronted with Henrietta’s humanity, Skloot shows that when doctors and scientists dissociate their work, their human subjects are at the cost. When morals come into play, everything changes and Skloot reinforces
According to Terrence F. Ackerman, as of the 1980s the American Medical Association had to include the respect for a person’s autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (Ackerman 14, 1982). This includes having the physician provide all the medical information to the patient even if the information could cause negative implication onto the patient. The physician is also expected to withhold all information of the patient from 3rd parties (Ackerman 14, 1982). Although it is seen as standard in today’s world, in
Scientists know her as HeLa, the immortal cell line that has been used for numerous scientific achievements, including the polio vaccine and other research with other viruses. They were the first cells to be cloned and used with gene mapping and chromosome staining. They have been used in cancer research and hormone research and drug research. In fact, HeLa cells have been used in over 60,000 research articles (Skloot, 2010). However, the woman behind the cells was cast in the shadows for decades. Henrietta Lacks was a poor African American tobacco farmer from 1950’s Baltimore. After giving birth to her first child, she noticed blood in her urine and went to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. During one of her treatments, cells from her cervix, cancerous and healthy, were removed without her knowledge and permission. These cells were then made into the immortal cell line that has been used widely in research. The unfortunate part of the situation was while scientists were profiting from their work with the HeLa cells, Lacks’ family was living in poverty without proper health insurance or the knowledge of Henrietta’s contribution to science. The case of Henrietta Lacks draws attention to the bioethical issues of informed consent, beneficence, not using people as a means to an end, and spreading knowledge.
The novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, is written by Rebecca Skloot. This novel provides a real story regarding research using human tissue without patient’s consent. It gives the background of Henrietta Lacks and the achievements HeLa cells established to point out how fallacious it is for doctors to take the cells without asking. Through the unique pattern and devices, Skloot expresses her sympathy for the right of consent of medical research.
Henrietta Lacks was born on August 18, 1920 in Roanoke, Virginia. She stayed with her grandfather who also took care of her other cousins, one in particular whose name is David (Day) Lacks. As Henrietta grew up, she lived with both her Grandpa Tommy and Day and worked on his farm. Considering how Henrietta and Day were together from their childhood, it was no surprise that they started having kids and soon enough got married. As the years continued, Henrietta noticed that she kept feeling like there was a lump in her womb/cervix and discovered that there was a lump in her cervix. Soon enough, Henrietta went to Johns Hopkins Medical Center to get this check and learned that she had cervical cancer. But here is where the problem arises, Henrietta gave full consent for her cancer treatment at Hopkins, but she never gave consent for the extraction and use of her cells. During her first treatment TeLinde, the doctor treating Henrietta, removed 2 sample tissues: one from her tumor and one from healthy cervical tissue, and then proceeded to treat Henrietta, all the while no one knowing that Hopkins had obtained tissue samples from Henrietta without her consent. These samples were later handed to ...
Bioethics is the use of morals in science. If there had been more bioethics in Henrietta Lacks’s case, her doctors may have used their morals to not take the cells from her body without her permission or at least let her family know they had. Sixteen years before her case, the Nuremberg Code had been created which stated 10 codes of ethics to be used during human experimentation. However, it was not a law and few doctors even knew it existed.The issue of informed consent was also brought up in 1957 but doctors testified it was unnecessary. However on June 30th, 1974,17 years later, a law was passed requiring informed consent for all federally funded research. The issue of bioethics affected HeLa and many began to doubt if the doctors at Johns Hopkins had really been ethical. In conclusion, Henrietta Lacks and her “immortal” cells helped the field of science and its future
“Medical ethics is a system of moral principles that apply values and judgments to the practice of clinical medicine and in scientific research. ... These values include the respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.” The key-word that stands out to me in that definition is respect, I believe that it is safe to say that the doctors at john hopkins university had little to no respect for mrs Lacks lacks in order to take her cells without her consent. Many people are able to argue that considering the fact that John Hopkins hospital in baltimore maryland is a public hospital then henrietta Lacks did not really have much right in determining what her cells may be used for or even if they could be used at all. Though this is a valid argument, it still does not deny the fact that the doctors at john hopkins hospital took her cells and made a profit with them and were able to save millions of lives and not give her anything public recognition nor a penny to neither her nor her
Dr. TeLinde and Dr. Gey were collecting samples for reasons that could potentially bring large benefit to society, but they did not consider how the individuals who provided the sample would directly benefit. In the case of Henrietta her tissue sample ultimately led to major medical advances, but due to the fact that when the sample was taken the researchers did not give forethought to the benefits and risks that might occur; therefore, Henrietta and her family were exposed to severe loss of privacy and did not receive any form of benefits from the widespread use of her cell line. The Belmont Report (1979) states how relevant risks and benefits must be thoroughly outlined in the documents used in the informed consent process. The research was not well designed in the assessment of risks and benefits component and did not consider this
For example Dr Jones who was Henrietta’s doctor should have taken informed consent from Henrietta for removal of tissue samples. Furthermore, Dr Jones and Dr Gey should have informed Henrietta about the cells and acknowledged her. Even though Dr Gey did not make any monetary benefit from HeLa cells he should have disclosed any financial interest in the consent form. Dr Jones and Dr Gey had good intentions as far as developing a human immortal cell line is concerned. Because having an immortal cell line definitely would have helped the scientific community. But Dr Gey did not realize that HeLa would become so popular and later on people will have objections for ethical concerns. Since he was one who sent HeLa cells all around the globe, he should have acknowledged Henrietta’s contribution. At least later when HeLa cells was very succesful, scientist or doctors at Hopkins should have informed henrietta’s family about her contribution to science. This would have acknowledged Henrietta, and that might have change the course for Henrietta’s family. Since HeLa cells became famous, everyone came to know about the ethical issues involved in this whole story. Imagine if HeLa cells were just a normal cell line, no one would have bothered to look into it. These ethical issues would not have come up. So the rule of thumb should be irrespective of person’s financial status, religion, and ethnicity, color if any tissue sample is removed from a
Truog, Robert D., Walter Robinson, Adrienne Randolph, and Alan Morris. "Is Informed Consent Always Necessary For Randomized, Controlled Trials?" The New England Journal of Medicine 340, (March 1999): 804-807.
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
In conclusion, obtaining informed consent is a vital part of respect for the patient and safeguarding of self-determination. The consent to participate in research or treatment should be informed, comprehensible, and free of coercion. There is not a clear black and white answer because no matter what is done to assure informed consent there is always a moment of doubt on the end of the patient as to whether what is going to take place is fully understood and their true wishes honored.
Patients’ have the right to know all details related to the service or treatment that will be provided and the right to refuse any such service or treatment before it happens. This informed consent will communicate exact procedure details, pain intensity and or disability period encountered, risk involvement, and any alternative methods of treatment and its risks. A patient will receive a concurrence...