More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues presented in the case of Henrietta Lacks
Ethical issues presented in the case of Henrietta Lacks
Ethical issues presented in the case of Henrietta Lacks
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Consent is important because what if Henrietta didn’t want her tumor to be used for research. What if she did want it to be taken out? The patient should know and agree to anything happening to his or her body. This is a controversial situation because her family has never received any compensation for this discovery or for any other uses of the HeLa cells. The family did not have any kind of insurance and had a slew of other health issues they need help with but got nothing.
Although many are unaware of it, scientific ethics have always been a major issue, especially in the United States. This was especially the case of Henrietta Lacks and her family through the early 1950s to present day. Henrietta Lacks hurried into John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland to find out why there was a lump on her cervix. When doctors diagnosed her with cervical cancer, she filled out a form giving consent to let the doctors perform any surgery they deemed necessary. Soon after Henrietta died in October of 1951, her husband, David (Day) Lacks, signed a consent form to let them perform an autopsy on her corpse.
This essay uses the book“ The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot to investigate the requirements of informed consent ,by informing the patients through every steps Henrietta’s story is an example on informed consent. On one hand theorists such as, Dale Keigner argue that informed consent should be notified by the doctor to the patient and the patient should be knowledge on the proceeding that the doctors will maintain. On the other hand , Lewis Soloman contends that the doctors should be able to take any specimens from the patient after operating without consent for scientific reasons and research. . He also asserted that doctors should be able to deduct any specimen that will be able to help in the science research. Others maintain
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.
Doctors first asked him for autopsy permission over the phone, bur Day refused. Later, when Day visited the hospitals, doctors once again asked him for autopsy permission, explaining that an autopsy would result in the accumulation of knowledge that would help others. This time, Day gave his permission, but not according to the contemporary standards of informed consent. Doctors did not specify that they were planning far more than an autopsy; they were planning to remove more of Henrietta’s cancerous cells and turn them into an immortal cell line for ongoing scientific research. While it is possible that Day might have supported this plan, it was never explained to him in terms that he could understand and reliably give his consent
This shows how Henrietta Lacks had a lot of possible medical issues but she never made it to those appointments to help her. She was most likely scared of going to the doctors, which was true. She was worried that they would take away her ability to have children, but she would most likely be less scared if she had a proper education. Though no law or code of ethics required doctors to ask permission before taking tissue from a living patient, the law made it very clear.removing tissue from the dead was illegal.” Even though they eventually got permission from her husband to do an autopsy, what would have stopped them from doing it without his permission.
Compared to the Lacks family, the Lacks knew their mother didn’t give consent for them to be using her cells for research. Skloot gives this example to the readers to compare both victims and their families suffered from misuse of informed consent. Even though this happen to the Henrietta in the 1950s, John situation is a little more current in time, it
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 the reading of Skloot, the big issue is the taking of Henrietta’s cells without her or family’s knowledge which is a violation of something very important and secret to Americans. The right to privacy is so important because a patient needs to know that a hospital, doctor, and nurse can be trusted with their medical information whether it is a small medical issue, or something major and embarrassing. You want to know that that information is not going to be out for the world to know or that information is going to be used somewhere else without your knowledge. In Provision 1 of the Guide to the Code of Ethics for Nurses, it is stated that “worth or value that people have simply because they are human not by virtue of any social standing, ability to evoke admiration, or any particular set of talents, skills, or powers.” (Flower, pp.8)
Even Rebecca Skloot states in, “Your Cells, their Research, Your Permission?”, “Public response is overwhelmingly consistent and in line with several studies: the public supports the science and wants to help it move forward. But that support is dependent on consent and trust.”, which I think her words are saying that she supports the research for science and it moving forward but disagrees with consent being so bland and hidden because support is dependant on trust. However, we took one person’s life to help millions of others, if I could risk my life to help millions of others I would take the chance and be glad I did as I am sure Henrietta
The injustice of taking Henrietta’s cells and using them for research without her consent or of her family for that matter; until 20 years later is incomprehensible. Many believe that the history of medical ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath and complying the federal law in protecting human research and confidentiality wasn’t yet recognized. All the same, the Lacks’ family isn’t given credit or acknowledgement for what Henrietta, has contributed to science, known as the HeLa cell line. Henrietta’s
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.
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.
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
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.
