The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a research done by Rebecca Skloot to unravel the story of Henrietta and her family to know what she underwent because of her cells. Skloot reveals a scenario of one of the most significant inputs to the field of medicine in her book. The novel starts with the memories of Skloot sitting in class, and her instructor talks on cell reproduction and how they have been explored from cancer cells in culture (Skloot, 2017). In the middle of his presentation, Skloot remembers the professor turning with a smile on his face to write down the words in huge print: Henrietta Lacks. Lacks is a lady that dies from a severe situation of cervical cancer. Before she died, a physician took a few samples of her tumor and attempted to preserve them in culture for many years. Lacks’ tumors survived and grew, as opposed to many human cells that doctors had tried to work on in the laboratory before that time without success. Fascinated by this topic, Skloot sought to know more and started her journey to know the life of Henrietta Lacks. Skloot’s novel documents the challenges of Henrietta and how this can be linked to bioethics.
Bioethics is a part of scientific ethics that involves seeking the informed consent of the patient or the patient’s proxy in case he or she cannot make that determination. I would also add that it incorporates approval being given after knowing the probable risks and benefits of undergoing treatment. In the entire novel, the writer recurrently indicates that Lacks’ family was not aware or did not understand what had occurred to their mother. I have determined that the only statement they could make is that their mother was discovered to be ill and soon was declared dead. Lacks was an African-American who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and her tumor cells began the first line of immortal human cells (Cho et al., 2015). In my opinion, being a black woman, she possibly received substandard care that would not be given to a white. Skloot (2017) demonstrates the troubles encountered with poor medical ethics that was evident in the handling of Skloot and violation of human rights. Lacks first knew that there was a “knot on [her] womb,” when she went to Johns Hopkins hospital to be examined (Skloot, 2017). Soon it was confirmed that she had cervical cancer and agreed to sign a consent form that permitted physicians to do any operative processes that they believed was needful. I am opposed to scholars who would insist that Henrietta had consented to the procedures, since they failed to acknowledge that the physicians could have suggested to her that their processes of surgery were still in the trial and there was a possible risk in allowing the operation.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a comprehensive blend of ethical and moral aspects that were not scrutinized during the period between 1940 and 1950. We can notice that the experience of Henrietta Lacks presents a critical ethical question of whether a patient’s biological material like a cell can be attributed to him or her once it is retracted from the body following his or her death. In Lacks’ case, a cell was taken off from her cervical tissue and used for cell cultures without an informed consent signed by her or close members of the family. As the doctors were treating her for cervical cancer and discovered the distinctiveness of her cells, they did not tell her or her family members concerning it. In the present times, we recognize the involvement of “HeLa” cells in several fields of research and scientific discoveries (Skloot, 2017). Several scholars or research consortiums have received millions of money through “HeLa” cells. With regard to this, I am certain of the idea that Lacks’ family members were exploited and did not receive the due compensation of the use of Henrietta’s cells. Even if the compensation was to be given, it is still debatable whether Henrietta’s cousins were the ones who deserved the dollars since they cared for her when she was sick or her husband and children.
The case is satirical since the research community profited greatly from the formation and dissemination of Henrietta’s cells. Yet, none of Henrietta’s family members received money or medical aid in honor of their loved one. In contrast, Henrietta’s daughter and her grandchildren encountered challenges in life, even lacking proper medical care and cover to their sickness. There was a scenario where following Henrietta’s demise, the physician wanted to do an autopsy on her body, but this could only be allowed by the consent of her husband according to the law (Cho et al., 2015). In the beginning, the husband did not agree to an autopsy, but after much coercion from the physicians and cousin, he consented. He was only convinced when she was promised that her children would benefit when they got sick (Skloot, 2017). I can clearly point out the consent of the husband was intimidated and it was not passed in an informed way. To this extent, it challenges the procedures and process of taking informed consent from people about patients. I believe that Lacks’ family member’s privacy rights were broken and dishonored as the connection of the “HeLa” cells to the Henrietta was broadcasted in the media without the informed consent of the family.
The possession and commercial utilization of human biological material is debated and ethically debatable matter today. Commercial utilization of biological materials like genes, blood, cells and many more donated by people raise some significant ethical issues as far as informed consent, exclusive rights to privacy and confidentially or sharing of profits gotten from such processes are concerned (Cho et al., 2015). I suggest that the informed consent indicating the probability of utilizing human biological components for further research and commercial reasons, should be drawn from the donor before removal procedure and more so the donor should be given a chance to consent or otherwise. My emphasis to physicians is that they ought to be careful not to violate the ethical principle of autonomy. Conversely, the law presents a clear framework that guides ownership rights. The law directs that once the donor gives the cell or blood for experimental research, he or she losses the right to own once it is eliminated from the body. In consequence, a donor cannot claim the profits received from the commercial utilization of what was donated, as long as he or she did not provide informed consent before the donation.
I sum up this piece by reiterating that the ethical principle regarding human biological materials should be a matter of concern, particularly by allowing for informed consent. Research consortiums need to incorporate a model for rewarding the donors of certain elements for their contributions. I think that scientific discoveries and contributions should be applauded alongside the source or origin. Henrietta was a source to the discovery of “HeLa” cells and to the medical field, but she was never thanked when her cells survived beyond her death. She deserved to be rewarded together with her family during that time of discovery.
References
Cho, M. K., Magnus, D., & Wilfond, B. S. (2015). Informed consent for research on medical practices. Annals of Internal Medicine, 163(9), 725-726.
Skloot, R. (2017). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Broadway Paperbacks.