The story of Henrietta Lacks is intertwined with many bioethical complexities. In 1951 Henrietta Lacks, African-American mother of five, was suffering from cervical cancer. She lived in Baltimore and therefore was treated at John’s Hospital, where treatment for African-Americans was less than sub-par. After her death, Lack’s cells were taken into the lab to study the mechanisms behind cervical cancer. At this moment in the story it is evident that something has gone wrong here. No consent for this was ever agreed to by Henrietta or her family. The scientists were never given permission to harvest Henrietta’s cells or exhibit scientific experiments on them. To their surprise, the scientists found that the cells were extraordinary. They reproduced rapidly and resiliently making them the first human cells successfully grown in a lab. These cells went on to be mass produced and distributed around the scientific community. These cells were used in research that saved lives and is widely recognized as a significant contribution to science yet her family has received no compensation. Henrietta Lack’s family can’t afford to see any doctors despite their relative’s significance to the field.
The dichotomy here is between justice and the greater good. Overall, Henrietta Lack’s cells were apart of research that was used to eradicate polio; they did a great amount of good for the population. The question is whether that outweighs the unfairness with which her family was treated. Is it even ok that the scientists took the cells to begin with? Does that fact that the scientists made a remarkable scientific discovery that saved lives, outweigh the injustice experienced by Henrietta Lack’s family? In modern day medicine, all of this would need to be justified with a sign consent form and I believe that is necessary. I believe that consent and jurisdiction needed to be given by the family in order for the scientists to remove the cells and undergo tests on them. The fact that the family was completely ignored through the whole process goes against the theory of justice.
In John Rawl’s book, The Theory of Justice, he discusses the two fundamental principles of justice. The first states that all individuals have the same basic liberties. The second states that social and economic positions should be open to all. In this situation the first principle is not respected. The same basic liberties of other patients were not respected in this case. The same basic liberties of other families were not respected in this case. In this situation it also seems like race player a role. In Baltimore at this time, Blacks and Whites didn’t receive the same levels of respect especially in terms of healthcare. The scientists may have taken further advantage of Henrietta Lacks because she was a Black woman. Overall it is clear that injustice was done on Henrietta Lacks and her family.
In my opinion despite the greater good that came out of the discovery of her cells, it was not right for the scientists to exploit them without any permission.
Works Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Rawls, J. (2013).A theory of justice. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd.
Gedge, E., Waluchow, J. W., & Thomas, J. (n.d.). Who Owns the Research? The Case of the HeLa Cells. InWell and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics(4th ed.). Broadview Press.
Hey Emma,
I agree with your post, and I found it especially troubling how the scientific community realizes the wrongs that were committed against Lacks and her family, but have yet to compensate for their actions. While I do not believe Henrietta’s family should become millionaires, as that could also cause issues, I would advocate for the family to receive some sort of monetary compensation for their relative’s contribution to science and the general population. Without the HeLa cells, it may have been years before scientists discovered human cells that could be produced in a laboratory, which means that polio would have potentially taken the lives of several others before a vaccine was created.
Citation:
Gedge, E., Waluchow, J. W., & Thomas, J. (n.d.). Who Owns the Research? The Case of the HeLa Cells. InWell and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics(4th ed.). Broadview Press.
Hi Emma,
Great post! I agree with all of your points – especially the necessity of consent in a situation like this. However, as I was reading this case for my own blog post and later reading your thoughts on the matter, I was thinking about the question of why compensation is important. In this case, I feel like the family definitely should be compensated because medical companies used Henrietta’s cells to make lots and lots of money, and because they exploited a family member, the family should be compensated.
However, in the general case, I do not know how necessary it is to compensate people for chance events that happen within their bodies. For example, let’s say that I, for whatever reason, grew a green tooth. Scientists sequence the cells within that tooth (with my consent, of course) and it turns out that the chemicals found within this tooth are the precursors to a cure for some devastating disease. Do I deserve any compensation for that? I don’t believe so. I put zero conscious effort into growing that green tooth, and it could have happened to anybody. I was not the mastermind behind the green tooth, and I do not deserve money for being the random guy that grew a green tooth.
By the same token, I do not believe that anybody should be able to profit off of chance occurrences in the bodies of others. The human collective owns the general body of knowledge and scientific innovation, and to say that someone deserves to make money from a chance event that supplemented that body of knowledge is preposterous. People do not deserve money unless 1) harm was done to them by another (as in this case, given that Henrietta and her family were exploited) or 2) they put in effort to make a discovery. The scientists in this case did not create the cells. They harvested them from an unsuspecting patient. They deserve no profit from that, in my opinion.
Hi Emma,
Great post. I do agree that injustice was done to family because of their race. I do not think the story would have played the same way if Henrietta was white. I also think that Henrietta’s family should been recognized from the beginning as opposed to later. In addition, the family should be compensated and taken care of. Like Kenquavius said, they do not need to be millionaires, but they do deserve money to take care of themselves. The family grew up very poor and no one thought that was an issue, no one thought to help them out.
Hi Emma!
I completely agree with your post. I think this scenario is something a lot of researchers and people in the healthcare field struggle to come to terms with. Yes Henrietta Lack’s cells led to many scientific breakthroughs, but at what cost? We spent a lot of time this semester discussing the importance of patient autonomy and obtaining informed consent, yet in the case of the HeLa cells, her patient autonomy was disrespected as she was not even asked if her cells could be used for potential future research purposes in addition to testing them for her personal benefit. For all we know, Lacks may have been thrilled to donate her cells to science and be happy to have housed the cells that led to many scientific breakthroughs; however we will never know because she was never asked. Respecting patient autonomy and the right to informed consent is of the utmost importance and in the future is absolutely necessary in all patient physician relationships.
I also wanted to touch on Kenquavius’ point above in regards to her family. I agree with his point that her family should not be compensated millions of dollars for the successful scientific discoveries that resulted from Lack’s cells; however the fact that her cells have saved so many lives, yet her family can’t afford basic healthcare doesn’t sit right with me. While monetary compensation may not be feasible, I think a deal should be worked out with her family in which they can receive at least some form of basic healthcare. This may not right the wrong that was done to the Lacks family, but it would at least be some form of compensation and apology for violating her patient autonomy.
Hi Emma,
I completely agree with your post that doctors should have asked for her consent. however I have a few questions regarding this case. If Ms. Lacks had approved her cells to be used for some other scientific reason and then died, would doctors be allowed to use the cells for a different purpose? Or would they have to ask her family? If they did ask her family, does this even count as consent since it’s not their cells? Also, though I completely agree that they should have asked for consent, I can see people arguing that its a microscopic part of her body. Cells, and DNA, exist literally everywhere, so how is this specifically different? Additionally, how do you feel about blanket consent: if someone gives general consent for all possibilities? Is this even consent since you’re technically not informed about the potentials?