1-Explain the ethical issues affecting the Henrietta Lacks case. Include whether these ethical issues outweigh the benefits of scientific discovery.
Henrietta Lacks’s case brought to light a number of ethical issues related to biomedical research that include the role of privacy and informed consent. The welfare of vulnerable people in society and their compensation were also themes that emerged in Henrietta’s case. It also highlighted on the commercialization of biospecimens and questioned the collection, use and dissemination aspects of collected data. Federally-funded institutions in the United States are required to follow the stated policies by the Department of Health and Human Services regarded biomedical research. The “Common Rule” is a current policy that touches on informed consent and oversight that looks into Institutional Review Boards for the research conducted with regard to human beings. The other issues that were discussed included scientific progress, patient control, and issues pertaining to accountability (Skloot, 2010).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ethical issues mentioned did not in any way outweigh the benefits of scientific discovery. In fact, it did the opposite because the tissue sample removed from Lacks created the first “immortal human cell line.” It is evident that Lacks’ cells never died and this has since them being widely propagated in culture. As such, for medical research they have become invaluable for decades. Additionally, the tissue sample helped in attaining the development of polio vaccine. Other experiments that have been made possible involve gene mapping, cloning, and even in vitro fertilization.
2-What were the laws regulating the use of a patient’s bodily tissue for medical research around the time Henrietta
The laws regulating the use of a patient’s bodily tissue for medical research involved a patients’ control and ownership rights. This is driven largely by the advances in biotechnology. Traditionally bodily tissues were removed from patients and used for diagnostic purposes, and later discarded (Shuster, 2017). Occasionally, these tissues would have added value in teaching or study; however, even during those times their record would only be limited to paper files, fixed microscope slides that were buried in laboratory archives, photographs found in textbooks and medical journals.
In scientific and medical advances, human biospecimens play a crucial role (Skloot, 2010). As such, research needs to continue having such specimens widely available in order for scientists to realize their goals of precision medicine. Through biospecimens research, discoveries have led to the understanding of human biology. This has resulted in scientists targeting approaches that detect and treat prevailing health conditions in given populations. Moreover, this manages to reduce the risks associated to the future occurrence of the disease(s).
3-Henrietta was receiving cancer treatment; and what laws currently determine ownership of bodily tissue?
Currently, the laws determining ownership of bodily tissue regards obtaining an informed consent from the patient. It is the right of a patient to donate their body parts apart from the regulatory aspects relating to authorizations. Statutes have been seen to limit a patient’s control over excised cells as they limit how these cells are used and may even require their eventual destruction. The statute has managed to eliminate all the rights that were ordinarily attached to property by assuming that the left amounts to “property” or “ownership.” All these were done for purposes of law conversion.
4-Who should own discarded body tissue?
Discarded body tissues have no owner as is illustrated by common law doctrine that states that there is ‘no property’ in a body. Therefore, no legal owner is ascribed to a dead human body or, by inference, or ‘dead’ body parts. Nonetheless, there are some cases that provide support that regard regenerating materials like the urine, blood, and hair, as ‘property’ (Lucassen & Wheeler, 2010). If the tissue had been removed with the patient’s consent then a practitioner is deemed by law to be the legal possession of the tissue. The reason is because the tissue was removed during a procedure and is regarded as abandoned by the patient who gave the consent. In essence, there is no property in body parts.
PBS News Hour. (2013, Aug 8). Henrietta Lacks’ immortal impact in research
now extends to patient consent. PBS . Retrieved from
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/henrietta-lacks-immortal-impact-on-medical-research
The ethical issues raised in Lacks’ case brought about heightened scrutiny but this did not stop a team of researchers from posting her whole genome sequence. Their actions did not break any rules or laws as this is advocated by journals in order to promote the replication of findings and also further research. The data provided intensified criticisms concerning privacy and informed consent. It is this that prompted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to remove the sequence from the public domain and met up with Lacks family. The blog looks into the new agreement made by Henrietta’s family and NIH to control the use of Lacks DNA; it is considered a legacy.
References
Greely, H. T., & Cho, M. K. (2013). The Henrietta Lacks legacy grows. EMBO Rep., 14,849
Lucassen, A., & Wheeler, R. (2010). Legal implications of tissue. Ann R Coll Surg Engl , 92(3), 189-192.
Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks . New York, NY: Crown.
Shuster, B. K. (2017). In the wake of Henrietta Lacks: Current U.S. law and policy on control and ownership of one’s body tissues used in medical research. The Journal of Health Ethics & Administration , 3(2), 8-18.
