We have known the amazing benefits of human tissue in medical research. These cells have helped with some of the most important advances in the sciences. They are used to develop vaccines for rabies, smallpox, and measles or used for radiation, drugs, cosmetics and viruses research which launched a million dollar industry [ Skloot, 316]. They have been used to find the cure for multibillion people, including most of us today. However, not that many people know where are these tissues come from or the stories of the “donors” who were desperate to protect their bodily rights and property rights. Most of the patients in the late 1950s have not been asked if they want to contribute their tissues to science, which has raised the debate over the ownership of biomedical materials, whether doctors can take the patient’s cell for research and commercialize them without consent and disclosure of potential profits. No case lawfully clarified the human tissue’s ownership. Guidelines and ethical codes are not the law, so they are justified as moral standards which are interpreted differently by people. Many articles were published, questioning the bioethics in biomedical research as well as the ownership of tissue.Other scientists proclaim the tightest control over tissues will put an end to the medical process, exceed cost and administrative burden. However, a person must have the basic bodily right to own their tissues, to be respected for their autonomy and to be disclosed of the procedure, the risk and the financial interest earnings from their body parts. For that reason, the resolution of this complex inssue is required new legislations which ensure social goals such as justice, protection and respect for individuals while continue the ...
... middle of paper ...
...son, both doctor and patient seem to have the ownership rights to the cell line. For the final analysis, new legislation is required. It should depend on different cases and different types of biological materials. It have to ensure justice, protection and respect from whom the materials were taken ,while guarantee the efficient distribution of such materials for the medical needs.
Work Cited
Bjorkman,B, Hansson S.O. “Bodily Rights and Property Rights.”Journal of Medical Ethics 32.4(2006): 209-214. BMJ. Web. 2 Arpil.2014.
Tangley, Laura. “Who Owns Humans Tissues and Cells?”BioScience 37.6(1987):376-378. Web. 2 Apri.2014.
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Random House: New York. 2000. Print. 16th April.2014.9
Strauss, Evelyn. “The Tissue Issue.”Science News 152.12 (1997): 190-191.Society for Science & the Public. Web. 5 May.2014.
In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot mainly focuses on three areas, the life of Henrietta Lacks and her family, ethics in the medical and research fields, and scientific advances due to HeLa cells. Skloot integrates examples of ethical controversies regarding the HeLa cells and related topics, and sociological benefits
Rebecca Skloot has done a marvelous job telling the story of Henrietta Lacks; the woman who changed science!
The author of the book titled "The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks" was the only person to truly pay homage to Henrietta and her family. Rebecca Skloot took the perspective that Henrietta and her family were real life humans and she never strayed away from that. Rebecca went through extensive measures to travel and get the research found in her book correct, while telling an accurate and vivid account of Henrietta's life. Rebecca Skloot was the only person to see beyond the abstraction of Henrietta and be a big help to Henrietta's family. Rebecca
Henrietta Lacks is not a common household name, yet in the scientific and medical world it has become one of the most important and talked names of the century. Up until the time that this book was written, very few people knew of Henrietta Lacks and how her cells contributed to modern science, but Rebecca Skloot aimed to change this. Eventually Skloot was able to reach Henrietta’s remaining family and through them she was able to tell the story of not only the importance of the HeLa cells but also Henrietta’s life.
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
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.
Do you believe that once your tissue has left your body, you no longer have rights to its commercial value? What about if it was taken without consent? Consent has been a major concern due to the medical advances made in the last century. After leaving the doctor’s office, anything you leave behind is no longer yours and hospitals can keep it for research sometimes forever (Skloot 315). In her work, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot uses Henrietta Lacks as an example to show how consent can be a complicated topic due to laws and research. Legal and medical scholars agree with Skloot saying the bio-technology industry is getting out of control. Thus, in her work, Rebecca Skloot examines consent, research, and the messy way
Ever-presently in the world there are occasions where research goes wrong, cell ownership reflects only selfishness and distrust for scientist, when they should be revered to the point where they would think of money. On the contrary, remarkable operations like the first successful adult human heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard would be complicated by tissue ownership in the instance where the patients are not able to speak, give consent. The issue of tissue ownership is a deep and vexing argument, but I find it that research in the name of humankind is more important than the "property" of one person.
“The purpose of the Act is to provide a consistent legislative framework for issues relating to whole body donation and the taking, storage and use of human organs and tissue.” (“Human tissue act - explanatory notes,” 2004)
It reminds that “We must see in every person a universe with its own secrets, with its own treasures, with its own sources of anguish, and with some measure of triumph.” In Skloot’s narrative attempt to piece together this universe of Henrietta Lacks, she realizes and expresses the challenges of this attempt. Skloot’s work is an effort to represent and depict Henrietta as she lived, rather than just as a line of immortal cells or untold stories. It is an attempt to restore personhood, wholeness, and voice to a fragmented picture. It is an attempt to reconcile various, sometimes competing versions of knowledge, each of which lends to, but also complicates the greater understanding of Henrietta’s story. It is an attempt to appreciate the complexity and depth of life and to encourage constant exploration
Johns Hopkins Hospital would use people in their “public wards”, who were predominately of low socioeconomic status, as research material without any permission or knowledge of their participation (Skloot, 2010, p. 30). The main ethical principles that apply in the this scenario of not receiving consent to have personal information and even bodily material used for research are: Integrity (1.04), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), and Informed Consent (9.03). This dilemma was not handled correctly because doctors during that time were interested in studying cancer cells and believed that it was acceptable to take people’s cells as a form of payment because they were receiving free medical treatment. Henrietta, in particular, was never asked or even told that her healthy and tumorous cells were being extracted during the day of her first cancer treatment (p. 33). Those at stake during this particular issue are the patients in the public wards, including Henrietta, the doctors Richard TeLinde, George Gey, and Howard Jones, the Lacks family, and many other families who do not know their loved ones are being used for science. Although laws were not set in place at the time, the doctors should have been presenting patients with consent forms and fully disclosing all the information pertaining to how they
When medical care providers are forced to make decisions and these decisions “violate one of the four principles of medical ethics” so that they can adhere to another of these principles this is considered an ethical dilemma (“Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care: Introduction”, n.d., p. 1). Bioethicists refer to the healthcare ethics four principles in their merits evaluation and medical procedure difficulties as transplants. Organ and or transplant allocation policies has a mixture of legal, ethical, scientific and many others, however the focus here will be to show how the four ethical principles, autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice, applies to transplant allocation (Childress, 2001, p. 5).
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.
The concepts of human enhancement and biotechnology are fairly new terms in the world of ethics and medicine. These words, although far from being unfamiliar, are not often heard in the medical field except in special cases. However, in the past few years, the research and use of biotechnology is on the rise and becoming more prevalent under certain situations. This week’s reading focuses on the issues of biotechnology in a historical and modern context, yet also addresses the pros and cons of such developments.
Biomedical engineers have saved or improved the lives of people by the inventive and creative technology they produce to solve problems that have baffled the industry for years. Patients who need an organ transplant or a new treatment for cancer have biomedical engineers to thank for their health improvements or their saved life. Biomedical engineers have a goal to exceed the standard and effectiveness of patient’s care. In the cross between bio medics and engineering, the engineer may have a wide range of jobs to perform such as designing a software for medical instrumentation or potentially a new stem cell.