Henrietta Lacks was nervous: her thoughts, marred by the pain of cancer spreading inside her, raced as she waited in the dimly lit, colored-only section of John Hopkins Hospital. Moments later, as Henrietta laid unconscious on the operating table, Dr. Wharton picked up a small sharp scalpel and carefully extracted tissues from the wall of her cervix. Afterwards, without notifying her of the extraction or obtaining permission, Wharton sent Henrietta’s cells to medical researcher George Gey for experimentation. Since then, these cells—commonly referred to as “HeLa”—have revolutionized medicine, contributing to numerous scientific discoveries and saving millions of lives. Roughly three decades after Henrietta’s death, the Lacks family received …show more content…
In the context of medical research, informed consent provides individuals with the opportunity to accept or decline involvement in research, and thereby adheres to their right to choose. Obtaining consent from donors is not limited to simply seeking permission, but involves explaining the nature and consequences of research in an honest and understandable manner. When this aspect of informed consent is ignored, unethical research ensues. For example, during the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, US Public Health researchers studied the progression of syphilis in African American men, under the false pretense of curing their “bad blood”. Though a treatment of penicillin was available at the time, researchers idly observed as subjects died painful, preventable deaths. In this case, the informed consent of the subjects was not fully attained as researchers used misinformation to encourage participation in otherwise detrimental studies. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, author Rebecca Skloot references a similar case in which a researcher named Chester Southam injected prisoners with cancer cells. Like researchers in the Tuskegee experiments, Southam did not thoroughly explain his research “[as] patients might have refused to participate in his study if they’d known what he was injecting” (Skloot 13). In addition to promoting ethical research, informed consent strengthens the trust between researchers and donors. When researchers seek permission before experimenting on biospecimen, they remain trustable figures to donors. As Rebecca Skloot notes in the article Your Cells Their Research Your Permission, donors would much rather grant permission for research than face “the shock of learning they [are] part of research, debates over who [controls] samples [and] questions over profits” (Skloot 3). Informed consent acts as a bridge urging the voluntary involvement of
And them doctors said if I gave them my old lady, they could use her to study that cancer and maybe help my children, my grandchildren” (Skloot 164-165). However Day did not know that they were doing this and the scientists did not care. An autopsy does not involve taking small bits from each of her organs and trying to grow her cells for personal use. Wilbur cut samples from her “bladder, bowel, uterus, kidney, vagina, ovary, appendix, liver, heart, and lungs” (Skloot 90). Gey grew Henrietta’s cells and called them HeLa cells; the immortal cells of the 50s.
Many accomplishments have been made in healthcare efforts in the last few decades; but unknowingly these accomplishments came from the sacrifice of other individuals. In the case of Henrietta Lacks, she was not even aware what she had given up. As Lacks was dying from aggressive ovarian cancer, samples of her tumor cells were taken without her knowledge or consent. The researcher, who obtained them, George Gey, uncaringly acquired them for the benefit of his lab work. This act eventually turned his profession around making him a well-known wealthy scientist.
Patient care is based around the individual- their best interest, treatment, and health concerns. Research is based around furthering knowledge within the medical world, by testing on people, and improving lives for future patients. In Henrietta’s case, she went to John Hopkins with the plan of being treated as a patient only, and was used for research, without education or consent. Making only a small effort to relieve her pain through radiation treatment, the physicians removed cells from Henrietta’s cervix to use in later studies. There is another line blurred, as Spigner, a University of Washington professor makes a point, stating, “The life and death of Henrietta Lacks is a cautionary tale that reflects the inherent contradiction between the stated purpose of medical research to provide benefit to humankind and the reality of blatant profiteering in the name of the advancement of science” (12).
Later, when Henrietta’s genome was published, it sparked up more drama, because this too was unethical. “That is private family information,” said Jeri Lacks-Whye, Lacks’s granddaughter. “It shouldn’t have been published without our consent” (The NY Times). I believe that the continued use of the HeLa cells would have been ethical if the scientists were given permission. “It was a big moment, a hopeful moment, sitting down with the family and bringing so many years of research without consent to an end” (NBC News).
However, millions of her cells were still alive and thriving. The cells from that tissue sample in her tumor the doctors took were mass-produced and have become priceless tools of medical research. Henrietta's cells are shipped around the world and have even been sent into space to study the effect of zero gravity on human cells. I believe that ethical responsibility, for medical researchers, includes having moral actions, consent, and believing in the concept of “a greater good.” First, I believe part of having ethical responsibility is having the appropriate moral actions.
Following her recent contraction of cervical cancer doctors were able to take Henrietta’s cells and test on them without her consent. After Henrietta’s death, the Lacks family (would later learn
Immortal Henrietta Informed consent is an ethically important aspect of medical care; patients must be fully informed of any and all possible risks and benefits from receiving medical treatment, participating in medical research as a subject, or donating live tissues to be studied. Only after receiving and understanding all of the necessary information can a patient give consent; if the patient does not consent, for whatever reason, then it is both illegal and unethical to follow through with treatment, research, or taking samples (O’Neill, 2003). However, particularly in regard to taking tissue samples, some doctors seem to think that what the patient doesn’t know won’t hurt them. One example of this is Henrietta Lacks and HeLa cells.
In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, Rebecca Skloot analyzes ethics in past scientific/medical studies, specifically Henrietta Lack’s case, to alter the way the reader sees how modern medicine came to be. Doctors took the cancer cells of a young, poor, African-American woman diagnosed with cervix cancer in 1951, without her consent, and used them to grow an immortal cell line that has made millions of dollars and is still used today. Skloot shows the effect Henrietta’s infamous cells (HeLa cells) have had on the scientific community presently and show the negative effect it has had on her family. The author wants the audience be aware of the how an essential cell line used in research was created with great ethical injustice. Skloot wants audiences to learn a little from Henrietta’s story and at least be aware of the ethical scientific issues today to form their own opinion.
In the novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Henrietta was an unwilling donor in tissue research. Researchers took her tissue without her consent, which was wrong of them to do. Today, researchers should have someone sign a consent form if they want to use that person's tissue for any form of research. This way the donor of the tissue knows exactly what will happen, and will not be as worried. It also establishes some form of trust between the researcher and the donor.
Henrietta’s name was purposefully removed from the context of HeLa cells by Dr. George Gey, the foremost researcher in the discovery of HeLa cells (Stump par
Henrietta Lacks was a black tobacco farmer from the south who, in 1950, at the age of 30, she was diagnosed with aggressive cervical cancer. Lacks went to John’s Hopkins medical center for treatment for her cancer. In April of 1951, she underwent surgery to remove the larger tumor on her cervix. Henrietta Lacks, died three days following the surgery. Even though Henrietta Lacks died, her cells from the tumor have lived on and have made a major impact on the biomedical community.
Henrietta Lacks was thirty years old and found a ‘knot’ on her cervix, which led to her going to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer and treated with radium and x-ray therapy. Some of the tissue was removed from her tumor and sent to George Gey’s lab to be grown in test tubes. Gey was in charge of the Tissue Culture Department at Hopkins and had been researching and experimenting to attempt to make cells to divide so they could have an unlimited supply of cells to experiment on. Henrietta nor her family knew about the tissue sample and neither Gey or Hopkins informed them.
But unfortunately, the experiment was also never clearly explained to them, they had thought it was just the best possible treatment expected to cure the sickness they might have had. Many unethical practices were evident in this study, in this case, the most important one was informed consent, which is a consent given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits. None of the participants in the Tuskegee study
Should patient consent be required to store and distribute their tissue for research? Should doctors disclose their financial interests? Would this make any difference in achieving fairness? Or is this not a matter of fairness or an ethical issue to begin with?
I have personal beliefs and I don’t want my beliefs compromised just because of research. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, it states, “it is important for donors to be able to control who has access to their tissues, because they worry that information gathered from tissue samples might be used against