The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks By Rebecca Skloot

1240 Words5 Pages

“Consent, an issue for the Patient”

In 1951, Henrietta Lacks’ cells were taken without her knowledge and to this day are still being used , she never got any type of recognition for that either both financially and publicly . Giving permission to doctors to do what they want with your body is a big debate today . Some people believe that there is no need for doctors to ask , and others think if somebody has something the world needs there is no such thing as permission . These people also believe that your body should be at the full disposal of the doctors . If it is your body you should be the only person in charge of what happens to it . The doctors shouldn’t be able to make decisions for you just because of the simple …show more content…

Indeed, a patient should definitely have to give permission for doctors to do any action on their bodies because this will give them the rights and power they deserve . There are many reasons why a patient should be in control of their bodies , including the fact that they will be able to control what happens to them and be fully aware of the doctor’s intentions. For example in text 1 ( The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot ) it can be shown what could happen to you if you are not aware of what the doctors are doing to you . In the text it describes a story of a woman who got her cells basically stolen and later revealed to be immortal because of their self regenerative abilities . Not only are these cells still being used today but her family has gotten no type of pay or contribution for it . This shows exactly how doctors can behave and how it doesn’t hurt to be more aware of their actions . This also comes back to consent, because if Henrietta Lacks had given consent and understood exactly what she was giving consent for there would be no book written about her . Henrietta Lacks would have still died but at least the life changing trait she had that the …show more content…

Text 2 (Morality, Religion and Experimenting on You) suggests that the way consent forms are given now is not fair . Doctors should make sure the patient understands because committing actions on somebody blind to those same actions is unethical. This is an aspect of how you should be fully aware of what you are giving consent to and how giving permission is important . The text implies that, “Informed consent forms are now often 40 pages , crammed with scientific and legalistic jargon that most patients don’t understand .” This helps support the idea that even if the patient did have to give consent they still don’t really give it because they don’t fully know what their giving consent to . This type of consent today is at most unfair, how is someone supposed to understand an endless amount of material that they know nothing about . Who is going to even read those 40 pages ? Most people will just sign and not go through the hassle of understanding , and the doctors should keep that in mind when asking the patient for permission . There are some that also say that the patient should understand and it’s their problem if they don’t. This point is easily unrealistic , because it is suggesting what basic knowledge of every person should have, which reveals that it’s more opinion than

Open Document