Introduction
The ethical principle necessitating the acquisition of informed consent from patients is at the core of Henrietta Lacks’ story. The collection of samples intended to study an aggressive form of cancer led to the discovery of immortal cells, which redefined the study of human disease processes. Numerous breakthroughs have been attributed to using cells from an African-American woman who was never recognized. The use of biological material without the knowledge of the donor or their kin constitutes a violation of the person’s right to informed consent, regardless of the absence of laws governing the practice.
Story Summary
The Henrietta Lacks story has had a profound impact on medical research. In 1951, Johns Hopkins Hospital identified Henrietta Lacks, a thirty-year-old African-American mother of five, as having an exceptionally severe form of cervical cancer (Sodekeand Powell 1). As was customary at the time, tissue samples were obtained during her diagnosis and treatment, and some of them were given to a researcher without the patient’s knowledge or consent. After years of fruitless attempts to cultivate human cells outside of the body, researchers discovered that Henrietta Lacks’ cancer cells, dubbed “HeLa” after the first letter of each of her first and last names, could live and divide in culture continuously (Sodeke and Powell 1).
Henrietta’s cancer soon claimed her life, but HeLa cells are still viable and are utilized in labs all over the world for a wide range of biomedical studies. While the cell line and subsequent discoveries proved enormously profitable, the Lacks family lived in squalor without much access to healthcare and received no financial rewards. The tragedy is further compounded by the original researchers offering the cells away to anybody who asked.
Parallel Ideas
The main issue to consider is that the mother of five’s cells were taken from her body while she was dying without her consent. They were subsequently labeled as HeLa cells, which, for reasons still unclear to researchers, became the first human cell line capable of surviving outside the body. This led to developing vaccines, medications, and treatments for polio, hemophilia, HIV, and various cancers (“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong” 7).
There are two vital interconnected ideas in the presented issue. The first is about how doctors utilized her cells to make incredible medical advancements; the other regards the Lacks family’s struggles. In particular, Deborah, the daughter, had difficulty dealing with and accepting her mother’s legacy. The history of African-American exploitation as research subjects by the American medical establishment is a recurring theme in Lack’s story.
As a biospecimen, HeLa has evolved to reflect an array of meanings depending on context and analytical approach because it functions at the nexus of science, commerce, and public policy. The commercial selling of items generated from HeLa cells is symbolic of the savagery of original enslavement, given that it shares several traits with the slave auctions of old. The questions that arise include the following. Who does HeLa work for? Is there a case to be made regarding the ethical use of HeLa products?
Ethical Considerations
There are schools of thought that argue that there were no laws in effect at the time Henrietta Lacks’ cells were extracted from her at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Therefore, the absence of explicit guidelines requiring physicians to obtain patient consent or notify them about removing tissue exempts medical professionals from any wrongdoing. However, the extraction of Lacks’ cells without her consent constitutes a grave violation of fundamental medical ethics. No individual must be subjected to any medical intervention without informed consent.
The ethical issues surrounding using Lacks’ cells must be viewed in context. There were very few hospitals that treated Black patients, including the one where her cells were taken (“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong” 7). Her family did not receive compensation from biotechnology companies or other businesses that benefited from her cells. Additionally, for decades after Lacks passed away, medical professionals and researchers frequently neglected to obtain her family’s permission before disclosing her identity to the public (“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong” 7).
They provided her medical records to reporters and even posted the genome of her cells online (“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong” 7). The events surrounding the continued subjugation of the African-American community are pressing scientists to address historical injustices. Some have demanded that the utilization of HeLa cells in research be curtailed or stopped utterly (“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong” 7). The proposals are informed that using the cells is immoral and upholds injustice since they were taken without Lacks’ knowledge or consent, even though such actions were lawful at the time.
Conclusion
Without permission from Henrietta Lacks’ family, the use of HeLa cells is unethical. Even though this study method is now allowed, it is immoral and contradicts sound scientific principles. The living relatives of Henrietta Lacks are directly impacted by actions such as the release of the HeLa cell genome line, where private genetic data is made public. The genome data release may highlight genetic anomalies that the Lacks family may pass on to future generations. It is crucial to create a policy intervention that allows members of the Lacks family to provide consent authorizing the usage of the cells. In addition, a system providing compensation for financial gains from using HeLa cells is critical.
Works Cited
“Henrietta Lacks: Science Must Right a Historical Wrong.” Nature, vol. 585, no. 7823. 2020, p. 7. Web.
Sodeke, Stephen Olufemi, and Lauren R. Powell. “Paying Tribute to Henrietta Lacks at Tuskegee University and at The Virginia Henrietta Lacks Commission, Richmond, Virginia.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 30, no. 4. 2019, pp. 1-9. Web.