The origination of HeLa cells, used in biomedical research for a potential cure for cancer, had made many ground breaking discoveries in science; all thanks to one woman, Mrs. Henrietta Lacks. The history of Mrs. Lacks’s contribution to these studies raised many ethical issues concerning healthcare practice. In the short film, The Way of All Flesh, we learn how these cells were revealed by direct violation of ethical principles. During the 1950s, matters regarding informed consent practices were in their beginning stages of implementation.
I presume that it would be ethically correct to provide a compensation to Henrietta Lacks descendants. I am aware that Henrietta Lacks cells enabled scientist to encounter new discoveries such as the polio vaccine and other. However, the benefits of her cells does not outweigh the fact that Lacks family deserved some sort of compensation. It would be ethically correct because the financial reward could have accommodated the needs of her family. In the article “Family of Henrietta Lacks gains some control” states, “When scientists and doctors crave the key to the genetic code that unlocked treatments and vaccines, two family members will have a seat at the table where the decisions are made” (Curtis).
What are the specific issues raised in the book—legally and ethically? Think about the 1980s John Moore case: the appeal court decision and its reversal by the California Supreme Court. Issues that raised in the book are race issues, the legality of taking adventage of patients who’s family aren’t able to fight for the rights and benefit of their cells. According to California supreme court, Under the duty to obtain informed consent, “a doctor must disclose his intent in using a patient for research and economic gain.” 6.
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.
Pathos is used as an appeal to emotion, often to gain an audience’s investment for a specific purpose. Animal shelter advertisements, car commercials, and even magazines use this method to attract an audience and pull them in by their heartstrings. Rebecca Skloot’s contemporary biography The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is no different, utilizing this method to maintain the audience’s attention and emotional investment in the story.
In the case of Henrietta Lacks and her family, the mistreatment of doctors and lack of informed consent defined nearly 60 years of the family’s history. Henrietta Lacks and her children had little to no information about serious medical procedures and the use of Henrietta’s cells in research. Henrietta’s cells launched a multibillion-dollar industry without her consent and doctors even took advantage of her children’s lack of education to continue their research without questions: “[Doctor] did not explain why he was having someone draw blood from Deborah… he wrote a phone number and told her to use it for making more appointments to give more blood” (188). Deborah did not have the knowledge to understand the demands or requests the doctors made of her, and the doctors did not inform her explicitly.
“Was It Illegal for Doctors to Take Cells from Henrietta Lacks Without her Consent?” How can you take cells from a human being and treat them as clothes that you’re just selling. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot told the story of the woman behind the famous cell line and the fact that her family did not know about Lacks’ immortal cells until more than 20 years after her death. Some believe it was legal to take Mrs. Lacks cells, while others disagree and say it’s illegal. It was definitely illegal for the doctors and scientist to take Henrietta’s cells without her consent.
They were not educated so when the doctor would say something scientific they would trust every word while not even understanding what he was saying. This part of informed consent was stressed throughout the book because in today’s society most people have enough education to have a general idea what is going on when they are at the hospital about to have a procedure done, making it seem
Can an image tell us everything we want to know about what happened? Why or why not? An image can not tell us everything we want to know about what happened. The images can be changed or altered by a editor during and after a person is having an interview for example or even a picture with photoshop.
Faden and Beauchamp discuss two definitions of informed consent, which are labeled sense1 and sense2. First, sense1 informed consent is defined as “autonomous authorization”. (Vaughn, p. 191). The key aspect of sense1 is that the patient has the autonomy to consent, or refuse consent. Faden and Beauchamp state four defining characteristics of sense1 informed consent: complete understanding of the consent, individual desire for the consent, intent to consent, and authorizing consent.
Medicine has changed in ways over the years that one might have never thought twice about having anything like that happen to them. People today have increased their knowledge overall about their health situations and how to treat themselves. Patients are stepping up and making decisions about their healthcare choices each day with physicians. And in this process it has turned out to be so important for people to understand what is truly being done before medical treatment is given. We have talked this semester about informed consent and how important it is that our patients understand the meaning of what they are having done.
Consent is patients’ rights because they have right to know what is happening to their life which is fundamental value in professional practice (Department of Health (DH), 2001). Dougherty and Lister (2015) state that consent is a patient’s rights to refuse or to accept a treatment. However, Dimond (2010) said that consent is a voluntarily decision which can be given orally, verbally, written or implied for example if you ask a patient to take their blood pressure and they offer their arm. Eyal (2012) also states that consent promote trust in medical procedures that people may seek and comply with medical advice and participate in medical research. Bok (2013) argues that there are problems with the trust-promoting as many patients give consent despite being to some extent distrustful.
Informed consent must never be assumed. On the other side of the spectrum, informed refusal is the patient's right to deny any of the services recommended. From a legal standpoint, it is important to always document informed consent and refusal to avoid any legal
INFROMED CONSENT ARE PATIENTS TRULY INFORMED??? Informed consent gives a competent patient the freewill to make his decisions about his health after getting informed adequately about the procedure, its alternatives, pros &cons and uncertainties related the procedure and its alternatives. Above all the patient’s consent must be voluntary and without any kind of pressure whatsoever. There are few fundamental question