Equipped with a charming college dropout story, a humanitarian endeavor, a revolutionary technology in laboratory testing, and a Steve Jobs-esque look, it did not take long for Theranos and its founder Elizabeth Holmes to intrigue the nation and achieve celebrity status in the Biotech and Business world. With the mission to "make access to high-integrity diagnostic information... a basic human right"(Topol 2013) coupled with the promise of low-cost-highaccuracy testing and transparency that are all achievable through a simple fingerpick (Leuty
2013; Rago 2013; Topol 2013). Indeed, Theranos won the hearts of some and stirred the emotions of many. After all, what person not entertain the idea of "cut[ting] costs while improving quality"(Rago
…show more content…
A lot of Holmes' 2013 statements have been, at most, only partially realized. It is not a crime to have visions and earning one's way to make them a reality is not a crime either; fraudulence is. Various lawsuits and bad publicities surfaced against the company(Carreyrou 2015b; della Cava 2016).
It appears that the instant elevation of Theranos as the next big thing--an antiestablishment, humanitarian, and revolutionary company from the Silicon Valley(Leuty 2013;
Rago 2013; Topol 2013), set the expectation for the company so high. While high expectations may be hard to meet, they surely are not impossible to achieve; in Theranos' case, the company's vision may be legitimate but the absence sophisticated technology to back this tremendous vision hungergames - ALS320 F16 S2 - A2D1. Page 3 of 5 of revolutionizing and changing the landscape of clinical laboratory medicine could not be helped much by all the secrecy stating proprietary rights as reason. Truly, something so intriguing and promising as Theranos would capture the curious minds of others and lead to a lot of scrutiny(Bilton 2016; Carreyrou 2015a; Carreyrou 2016; Gupta 2016; Krim 2015;
The court said doctors said researchers should disclose financial interests in patient tissues”(Skloot 205).
Before I start my discussion, I would like to thank Henrietta Lacks for her cells even though they were taken without her consent and also thank the Lacks’ family for their patience in dealing with this issue of not being told about the use of the Henrietta’s cells. Neither Henrietta nor her family got recognition for them. This story tells us how far we have come in this day and age in terms of privacy information and what people can and cannot do because of HIPPA. It was common practice to use people’s information and cells without their consent.
Steps have been enforced in order to provide a safer environment for both the caregiver and the patient. The implemented consent form has given the laboratory workers a direct line of communication with the patients granting them permission to preform tests on removed tissues. Patients also have the right to deny any sort of testing; giving the power to the patient, which is something Henrietta never had. Many ethical contradictions were brought to the surface with the HeLa cells. They were taken without knowledge, studied, sold, and resold all without consent.
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
Every year doctors move forward in the chase to find cures for diseases, such as common colds, viruses, and more, thanks to the testing of cells from the infected. Henrietta Lacks’ stolen cancer cells have led to biological advances that have been crucial for several cures. In “A Family Consents to a Medical Gift, 62 Years later,” Carl Zimmer focuses on Henrietta Lacks’ cells, the tension between the National Institute of Health, and the battle to release the experiments to the public all while attempting to choose the side of the companies over the side of the family that was kept outside of the loop. Over 1,500 people die from cancer in a day, 500,000 in a year (Landis).
Whether the motive behind the research was to improve human health, or to make money, the physicians neglected the real reason Henrietta was there, seeking help as a patient. Their later studies proved to be successful, but the unethical actions behind taking the cells remain just as prominent as the
And although, these privacy protections did not cover genetic information, 12 years later congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to fill the gap. (Stump) The National Institute of Health’s (NIH) now requires strict ethical standards including informed consent from all researchers seeking funding. These are steps in the right direction but just like anyone working in the medical field would tell you, there is still more to be done to ensure complete patient privacy and informed consent is the norm in every branch within the medical community. Whereas it took many years for the medical community to acknowledge the violations and origin of Henrietta’s cells it reassuring to see the progress that has been made to stamp out bad ethical behaviors.
In August of 2013, Talha Khan Burki wrote “Righting a Long-standing Wrong for Henrietta Lacks” for Lancet Oncology. Burki’s purpose was to highlight the problem with the sequence data of patients’ cells (namely, Henrietta Lacks) being publicly released and to inform people of the privacy risks involved. Burki did a very good job at explaining what the issue was, what had been done about it and what needed to happen. Generally, readers struggle and become overwhelmed when they see a large sum of information all at one time. However, while this article provides the reader with several facts, it makes the reader think and Burki did a very well at writing in a manner that prior knowledge of certain terms or concepts are not critical to comprehending.
I feel that it is necessary to take advantage of the medical innovations acquired through the discovery of HeLa cells, even if it was not done ethically. At the time when the medical innovations were first coming out, there was no knowledge of the foul play that had occurred. Public health systems were able to use the technologies discovered to improve the quality of life for millions of people. In that respect alone I feel that the public health system was accurate. When the discovery of the negative practices arose, I feel that public health systems still responded effectively as they became major players in the process of regulating research and protecting its subjects.
Science and ethics have been colliding back and forth for centuries. Science want to discover new technologies to help people and for other selfish reason. People want medical help to save their loved ones. Many times scientists have sacrificed the good of a few for the needs of many. In Rebecca Skloot's modern day investigative biography The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks Rebecca Skloot uses Pathos to develop the themes of immorality and unethical behavior of medical science.
“Half an hour passed. The bloodstream in this women was new and it seemed to have done a new thing to her,” (Bradbury 17). In that dystopia random health care workers came in used their machine and were able to change the bloodstream in thirty minutes, but in Sandtopia technology is used with professional. Eliminating prizing completion among physician is possible through increasing quality completion (Briere n.pag.). Because patients can visit any physicians, Sandtopia becomes more like one gigantic preferred provider network with contract with a single insurer.
The final violation of ethical principles, in the story of Henrietta Lacks, was the violation of justice. Without the contribution of Henrietta’s cells, many discoveries and vaccines, such as the vaccine that conquered Polio, would not have made their pivotal breakthroughs in biomedical research. Her direct and unknowingly, supportive contribution helped save many people’s lives all over the world. Unfortunately, her named did not receive the recognition it deserved, and her family never received any compensation for profits made from direct use of her
Quintiles is the number one clinical research organization in the world. I believe that the major difference that sets Quintiles apart is the organizations understanding of increased medical cost. Because of this Quintiles understands that the data they provide to their sponsors must be of high quality. The advantage of Quintiles understanding this means that they may win a bid over the company that I work for because of time that it takes to produce quality data. The disadvantage could be that they are not awarded a bid because the drug company wants to provide data for FDA approval within a short period of time.
Once appraised by Silicon Valley Press tech, Theranos, a biotechnology company, is losing its name value as days go by. Elizabeth Holmes, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Theranos, was known for her unique story of how Theranos has started. Upon start of the company, Holmes claimed that the Theranos’ technology is new, but different from what is out in the market. New and innovative, this company’s propaganda attracted many people’s attentions. From the start, Holmes’ plan was to provide higher accuracy tests, multiple tests from a drop of blood, and, in bigger picture, more access to its technology to the public.
Deviance and crime is a common characteristic of Canadian society. Deviance is defined as: “recognized violation of cultural norms” (2013, pg.465). While crime is defined as: “recognized violation of society’s formally enacted criminal law” (2013, pg.464). There are some universal similarities about what we as humans consider morally deviant, still, what is regarded as deviant or criminal behavior in Canada may not resonate with other societies. Some behavior “can fall right in between deviant and criminal” (Healy, 2012).