Henrietta Lacks

Words: 1007
Pages: 5

Henrietta Lacks was a poor black woman who died from cervical cancer in the 1950’s. Although she would never know, her cells have made a significant and invaluable impact on medical science. Her cells were taken without her or her family’s knowledge and consent. This situation was unethical, inappropriate, and it is still happening today. According to the RAND corporation, “there are more than 307 million tissue samples in the United States alone”, and this number is only increasing. These samples didn't all come from willing and informed donors, but from everyday people who were receiving a standard routine procedure such as a blood test. A patient should have legal ownership over his or her tissues and cells because it is only ethical and …show more content…
Ethics are a crucial part of modern medicine and society in general; and informed consent is a cornerstone of modern medicine ethics. “The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, aka the Common Rule, requires that scientists tell people if they are participating in research and that they are able to withdraw consent at any time” (Skloot 317). It was created for the protection of research subjects. But this law doesn't apply to cell and tissue samples. “Today, if doctors want to gather tissues from patients strictly for research purposes, as in Henrietta’s case, they are required to get informed consent. But storing tissues from diagnostic procedures like, say, mole biopsies, and using them in future research doesn’t require such consent” (Skloot 317). So a patient is only asked for consent if it is strictly for research, and if their cells and tissues are attached at the time of …show more content…
One could argue that patient cell ownership “hinders scientific discovery.” In actuality, it is the opposite, research and treatment can be blocked by researchers who monopolize and have restrictive patents. For example, Myriad holds patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and charges three thousand dollars for an individual to be tested. By giving all the power to large companies it ends up limiting scientific discovery because of patent issues. In addition, patient ownership could actually improve science. By giving ownership and property rights to an individual it can improve the public’s perception and thereby increasing donors. And given the fact, “There are more than 121,000 people in the U.S. on the waiting list for organ transplants” tissues are clearly needed. Many also argue that individuals should donate their cells and tissues because it is for the common good. However, imposing on the rights of individuals does not benefit society. Because we live in a “capitalistic society” a common argument is that by giving ownership rights it allows economic exploitation on the part of individuals. By giving ownership rights to companies it does not stop commercialization, “It just hands that commercial value to researchers” (Skloot 324). Robin Feldman explains the irony of the situation by writing, “You have no property rights in the cells of your body when they are outside your body because