“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot is about an African American woman who had her cells taken without any consent from her or her family to benefit the medical and science field. The Lacks family had no idea about Henrietta’s cells were alive and tested on for all kind of experiments. Henrietta’s case and other similar cases brought up an issue of who has the ownership of the tissue: the patient or the researcher? This issue became serious when researchers and scientists started making profits and having it patented. The argument against giving people legal ownership of their tissues is that everyone benefits from the research. The argument supporting is that it benefits at varying degrees and not all people have equal access to the treatments and medication made possible by tissue and cell research.
There are several consequences of a profit-driven health care system, whether it was intended or unintended. The intended consequence would be scientists and researchers working to make profits instead of working to help people. Besides, profit-driven health care system can lead to unequal access to medication. On the other hand, the unintended consequence would be “…patients blocking the progress of science by holding out for excessive profits” (Skloot, 2010, p. 147)
…show more content…
It is unrealistic because not all people can afford health care, for example the Lacks family because “Henrietta’s family can’t even go see a doctor because they can’t afford it” (Skloot, 2010, p. 180). The quality of health care all depends on what kind of insurance people have and if they have the money to afford it. Also, there are still limitations to treat or cure certain diseases that people have, such as HIV, diabetes, and more, so quality health for all is impossible today. However, many scientists and researchers are working on it to cure those diseases and medical progress has come far compared to the