Blog # 3

I'm not sure whether anyone has the right to tell the story of another person, however in this case I feel it was necessary. A lot of the time stories of injustices and peoples sufferings go untold and more often than not these stories are told by an author with a different cultural background. I think that Rebecca Skloot tried to give life to Henrietta lacks so that the reader could see a person. I also think that she became really close to Henrietta’s family and to Henrietta herself that it’s almost as if she believed she knew what Henrietta would say. That is not to say that what the author did was right. I feel that maybe that was a little much. I would have liked this story to have been told by someone with more insight and cultural background. I also think that the profit made from the book should go to the family or at least some of it since the book emphasizes how much Henrietta and the family had been exploited, and whether the author is white or black the author would have still been the beneficiary. I am glad that Rebecca wrote the book if not we would have maybe never known the story of Henrietta Lacks. It is important to know about these types of injustices so that we become better informed and more aware of what goes on. This book made me realize the importance of reading, because there is so much knowledge out there in books that is not taught or mentioned to us in school and ultimately it is up to us to become better critical thinkers so that we won't get taken advantage of.

Blog #3

Maria Vazquez

Writing Workshop

Blog #3

19 August 2012

Authorship and Authority

In the book by Rebecca Skloot, a journalist, The Life of Henrietta Lacks exist the issue of authorship.  I believe that authorship is part of being a writer because and author is consider someone who has made contributions to a published study; however, I also believe that there is exits ethics in this kind work too. Being a writer and an author may have nothing to do with the tone of the skin, it is about telling a story to the reader.  In my opinion, Rebecca Skloot did a great job in writing this book and she did whatever she needed to tell the story of Henrietta Lack and the legacy of her cells. She spent a lot of her time interacting with Henrietta family in order to figure out the person and the mother behind this HeLa cells.  Moreover, I believe that if she would not have written this book people would know very little if at all about Henrietta Lacks. For example,  I had never heard anything about her not even her immortal cells.

On the other hand, I personally think that Rebecca Skloot went a little too far in matters about the family and forgetting the main focus of the story the women behind the cells.  I believe that she included very personal information about Henrietta’s family especially about Deborah who was very uncomfortable knowing about the cell of her mother.  Skloot talks about the family financial status and how ignorant they were related to the information about Henrietta cell and how people from a research laboratory just took advantage of them in order to take blood from the family to do gene mapping.  I do not know what were Skloot’s intentions in telling these details about the family or even if the family agreed with it. However, she mentioned this on her book which I do not really agree unless this has been in accordance between her and the Lacks Family.

On the other hand, I really enjoy reading the book, but Rebecca should had helped Henrietta’s family by giving some of the profits of her book to the family as a compensation of the great story she wrote about. In addition, it was interesting to know about how research was perform during segregation and how important is being ethnic in what one does. I learned about the history of science, and how people used to perform science in the 1950’s 

Blog 3

Ephraim Morado 

In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot, the issue of authorship always comes to focus. An author is usually a writer who tells a story through books, journals, and articles. The author has the authority to what he/she wants to put in his/her article. So basically they have the authority on how they want to tell the story even if it will only be beneficial to them. This is one of many issues of the book because Skloot, a white person, is telling the story of a Henrietta Lacks, a black individual. In the book Skloot is giving little bits and pieces of Henrietta’s life but it seems that their lives are completely different from each other. Although Skloot is telling the story of Henrietta, I believe that the ethnic background of the author is not really significant. Also, a more important subject when it comes to authorship is the author’s point of view.

                When one reads this book they can tell that Rebecca Skloot searched far and wide with a sheer determination to tell Henrietta’s story. Unfortunately, I think her style of writing is not very credible because she is in control of how to tell the story of another person’s life. A person who tries to write a story of someone else’s life would be more reliable only if the author has a direct connection with them. In Rebecca Skloot’s case it seems that rather than having a connection in the first place, she is trying to make the connection with the Lacks family. For instance, if one was to compare this with “The Help”, a book written by Kathryn Stockett, one can see how Stockett is connected to the African American community. She was able to expierience and witness how oppressed “The Help” was during that time. Also, her motivation of writing the book was very different compared to Skloot. Stockett wanted the voices of the underprivileged black women’s voices to be heard. On the other hand, Skloot’s motivation is to find more information about the HeLa cells that she was introduced to in one of her science classes. So the big difference between these two books is the point of view that the authors provide. Stockett’s story intersects with “The Help”, but Skloot’s story does not.        

                Furthermore, I think the author’s connection with the subject matter is an extremely important element in term of point of view. Although the book is written like a novel in addition to it being very well paced and well written, her style of writing about Henrietta’s life is also very inconsistent. Mainly because when I was reading the book I felt as if I was reading three different stories. One is the story of Henrietta, two is the fight against cancer, and finally Skloot’s journey of obtaining information about Henrietta. I feel like we are given the most minimal amount of information about Henrietta Lacks, because all her stories come from a secondary source. I mean if someone compared this book with Frederick Douglas’ perspective and style of the writer is extremely different. I feel like in the story of Frederick Douglas we were able to experience firsthand on how being an African American man in a highly oppressive society changed him as a person. Basically when a one reads Frederick Douglas they are able to rely on every piece of information given by the book because it was given by a primary source.

                In every story, the conqueror always tells the tale and the conquered is left without a voice. Although Rebecca is telling the story from her perspective I feel like it was the right thing to do, and the only way people in today’s society can learn about the story behind the HeLa cells. However, the aftermath of this book is highly controversial because as Rebecca Skloot flourished the Lacks family remained in their lower class status. Unfortunately, that’s just how the world works today, if Rebecca Skloot did not do this someone else would receive credit and nothing would have ever changed. The only way that the Lacks family would achieve the goal of receiving credit for their Henrietta’s life story is if they wrote it themselves. Sadly, they were not given the same privileges that Skloot received in her life, so they were not able to tell Henrietta’s story.      

Authorship and.....

Israel Santana

I believe that the authorship is legitimate. We fight for equality and yet the question why a white women is telling the story of a black women. I see the problems that come with Rebecca Skloot’s point of view being in appropriate. However I feel that no one else went through all the ups and downs of finding out the truth about Henrietta lacks, why not white women why not any one who put in the effort after all it is the perspective that makes the story so intriguing. Most stories or that of a person's point of view, in this case it is that of Rebecca Skloot who decided to tell her story about uncovering the truth and finding the struggle that the lacks family has gone through, as well as shining light on the truth about Henrietta. She the book sort of went back and forth between third person and first person perspective, with her telling a story about Henrietta and herself.

In some respect I may be judged and criticized for being insensitive to the issue at hand. However it is only right that an objective view is set aside from that of ethnicity, class or gender being an issue. The skloot had a lot too prove, no one had ever written anything about Henrietta before. It might have been because of all the red tape surrounding her history. I do believe Henrietta was completely taken advantage of do to her race, status and knowledge while undergoing her cancer treatment, and how her cells where taken without permission but I find it completely permissible how skloot brought the subject to light. Until someone else tells the story of Henrietta lacks that others think is worthy then we can tell whether the author was just or not. Maybe their point of view would be completely different.

Authorship and Authority

Authorship & Authority

There has been so much debate about who should tell Henrietta’s story and it is unnecessary. The ethnic background of Rebecca Skloot should not be questioned because she spent years interacting with the Lackses family trying to figure out the person behind HeLa cells. If people think that an African American should have written The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, then that means segregation still exists. When Henrietta was alive segregation existed, but it seems like we have not made progress to overcome segregation. Deborah could have told Henrietta’s story, but she died and did not know much about HeLa cells except for what she have been told. If I had to choose someone else to tell Henrietta’s story, then I would pick Deborah to be the storyteller. Deborah was the main family member who was affected by HeLa cells both mentally and physically. She practically made herself sick trying to figure out who her mother was and why HeLa cells were famous in science. Lawrence and Zakariyya knew who their mother was and cared more about suing John Hopkins to receive some of the profits. I also think Margaret could have told Henrietta’s story because Henrietta confidante in her the most. The problem with Deborah and Margaret telling Henrietta’s story is they would have not been able to access books and journals on HeLa cells.

I enjoyed reading the book, but I feel Skloot included unnecessary information about the family’s financial status. The reader is aware that the family is less fortunate than the average family, so Skloot does not need to repeat herself unless she tries to find a way for them to benefit from the profits. She should have found a way for the family to receive health insurance instead of discussing Deborah money problems into details. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks became popular and made a lot of money, but the family only received a thank you from the author. Skloot created the Henrietta Lack Foundation; however, none of the donations go directly to the family. Skloot developed a relationship with the Lackses family yet I do not think she tried to get the family some justice. She could have told the story in a way that does not reflect the family’s financial status because she did not try to help Henrietta’s immediate family. Sloot could have made Deborah a co-author to honor both Henrietta and Deborah so the family can receive some of the book profits.

BLOG #3: Authorship & Authority

What does it mean to be an author, to tell a story? Is the author the authority, or should the subjects have a say in their own lives? In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks writing about experiences in detail that she could neither have known about nor experienced. In the past, particularly in writings from the Anti-Slavery movement, this was a common practice, and was seen as a necessary tactic to combat the evil of slavery. However, we live in a very different world today, so, is this still fair? Or does this kind of book allow privileged outsiders to reap the benefits (this is a highly successful work) of another’s suffering?  Explain whether or not you think this kind authorship is appropriate. If yes, why? What “gives them the right”? If no, why not? Aren’t these stories important? If we didn’t hear them from these White women, would we hear them at all? 

Consequences of a Profit-driven Health Care System

                A profit-driven health care system can lead to unintended and intended consequences such as selfishly profiting from those who are medically disadvantaged, those who are deemed unhealthy falling victim to economic policies, and receiving unfair treatment as a result of not being able to afford health care services. These consequences can lead to or can be based on what Stefan Elbe calls biopolitical racism; racism that is not based on ethnicity or culture but racism based on who is healthy and who is not.

With this in mind, a profit-driven health care system may enable large companies and large pharmaceutical companies to selfishly profit at the expense of those who are medically disadvantaged. Bioethics, Vulnerability, and Protection, an article discussing exploitation in the field of medicine, describes how Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical company, had sponsored a clinical trial in Nigeria that led to severely harming those involved in the trial. This clinical trial had used subjects who were children inflicted with meningitis during an epidemic of meningitis in children. The drug being tested, and therefore had not been approved for use in the United States, was trovafloxacin. The experiment had resulted in eleven children dying as a result and several others becoming deaf or blind (Macklin, 2003). Nevertheless, the company justified the study since the purpose was to “study the safety and effectiveness of the product and… to pioneer a breakthrough treatment for the Third World” (Macklin, 2003).

Even though there are guidelines and regulations that are enforced, that does not meant that they will always be followed. Nevertheless, even if these regulations were strictly enforced, do the individuals participating in the experiment really have a choice? The children participating are extremely sick, their parents have no money, and they are presented, in essence, with ‘free’ medication. Because these individuals are coming from disadvantaged and medically disadvantaged backgrounds they may not have access to any health care services or even beware of scientific concepts and research and their consequences. As a result, having so-called benefits such as receiving medication at no financial cost can be very appealing almost a blessing to parents who have no money to treat their child. Therefore, in a profit-driven health care system a consequence may be selfishly profiting at the expense of people coming from these backgrounds.

Another consequence of a profit- driven health care system may be the possibility of falling victim to economic policies as a result of not being able to have access to health care services. In Aids, Security, Biopolitics, the author of the article had stated that in 1999 a former UN Population Fund official had joked that aids would be a means to controlling population growth in Africa. The author of the article, Stefan Elbe, then summarizes the intentions of the joke as meaning “increased mortality… was one of three ways of controlling population growth, thereby implying that hypothetically letting those infected with HIV die could be beneficial for those surviving the pandemic” (Elbe, 2005).  Again analyzing the words of the official through an economic perspective, Barton Gellman author of The Belated Global Response to Aids in Africa, writes ‘ [i]f the only effect of the AIDS epidemic were to reduce the population growth rate, it would increase the growth rate of per capita income in any plausible economic model’ (Elbe, 2005).

Then, from a main representation of a government, the president of Botswana, summarized in the words of Stefan Elbe, had stated that “providing antiretrovirals (ARVs) to its citizens would have the undesirable effect of keeping persons living with HIV alive longer, thus increasing the chances of further transmission of the virus which was undesirable for the population as a whole” (Elbe, 2005). In essence, these groups who are not only inflicted with disease but are also coming from disadvantaged and medically disadvantaged backgrounds have now become part of economic analysis on disease that only focuses on the benefits of the economy versus the health of the people. Even the health of the people can be dangerous to state because as Stefan Elbe argues, the biopolitical racism results in the idea of those are healthy as benefiting more with the absence of the unhealthy. Rather than provide treatment which can be costly and in which David Korn claims that everyone will benefit, in a profit-driven health care system those who cannot afford treatment can be subjected to unfair treatment and fall victim to economic policies that give priority and importance to the economy rather than the health of those who cannot afford or cannot gain access to health care services.

Finally, another consequence of a profit-driven health care system is receiving unfair treatment as a result of not being able to afford health care services. As Stefan Elbe, author of Aids, Security, Biopolitics, states rather than receive treatment individuals who cannot afford access to health care to get treated are often quarantined, such as those living with HIV/AIDS, faced with violence, loss of job opportunities, ostracized, and in cases persecuted. Again the consequences of simply stating that everyone can benefit by sacrificing pieces of their self to gain benefit in return can lead to consequences such as the justification of such treatment in that this is protecting, improving, and ensuring the “health of populations” (Elbe, 2005). As an example, stated in Elbe’s article, in Colombia, “left-wing guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)” had ordered 30,000 inhabitants to take HIV tests. If they had tested positive they were ordered out of their homes. In addition, they were ordered to carry identity cards that contained the result of the tests.  Again the biopolitical racism that Stefan Elbe discusses is present in this case because there is the unjust treatment of individuals based on them being considered unhealthy by forcing them to leave their homes and forcing them to carry identity cards as if their disease is their identity.

In conclusion, the consequences, whether intended or unintended, can lead to decisions that may harm or even kill populations who are coming from disadvantaged and medically disadvantaged backgrounds. This in turn can also lead to actions being taken that is based on biopolitical racism which may justify the harm being inflicted on vulnerable populations coming from these backgrounds.

Blog 2

Although David Korn does have a point that we should all want to contribute to the advancements in science. I think that each and every one of us should have the right to decide how our bits and pieces are used. After all they are still our bits and pieces. As far as everyone benefiting from this I'm not too convinced that this is entirely true, or at least only partially true. Those who have money will get the treatment they need and those who don't might not be able to obtain it; at least in this country. A perfect example would be the Lacks family. Their mother's cells were responsible for so many medical breakthroughs and advancements ; however the family is so poor that they cant even afford to seek good medical attention. Where is the fairness in that? The way I see it if i'm not allowed to inexpensive medical care when I need it, I think I have the right to deny the use of my bits and pieces. This shouldn't be a one way system. Another thing that concerns me with our profit-driven health care system is that any medical advancements that might that take place might not always be to help humanity but rather the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.  Allowing profit to guide research is dangerous. People who give the money for this type of research in which profit is the goal do not want our well being. Curing people of their diseases would not be good business.

Blog #2

Maria Vazquez

Writing Workshop: Blog 2

3 August 2012

            Profit-driving health system is a very controversial issue. One of the biggest arguments against giving tissue ownership to people is what David Korn once said that donation of tissue is many times driven by a morality in order to gain knowledge and to help others while everyone may benefit from it. Although it is well know that a lot of people do not have health care, consequently they do not have access to treatment and medication which was produced from cell research.  It has also been known that in many cases discrimination in the health care system existed based on class.  This is shown in many different scenarios in the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot.  Rebecca states ‘They recruited hundreds of African-American men with syphilis, then watched them die slow. They were poor and uneducated …[R]esearchers chose black subjects because they, like many whites at the time, believe black people were “a notoriously syphilis soaked race.”’ (50). This shows us how discrimination in health care system was present in the 1950’s and how the researchers were able to observe people die as they  observed  the different stages of syphilis. Also, this indicate that they were very intelligent in the way they attracted people in order to make sure that the people were the most susceptible because of their needs.

            One may also argue that people should have the right to decide whether or not to allow researchers to do further studies in either tissue or blood sample. However, one may also say that it is also important to inculcate donation of tissue for new medical advance because this will benefit others. One should be able to donate a bit part of him or her without expecting a profit from it since if someday this gesture helps in the discovery of cure for a disease. This should be more gratifying than any monetary stimulation.

            On the other hand, it is well know that our health system is profit driven, since all people are not equal to the system. Many people cannot afford health insurance and in consequence they do not have access to medication or treatment. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies are also known to be profit organization which allows for the main focus to shift to selling their product. One could say that this is understandable since the researchers and workers from the pharmaceutical company had done all the work they should be more interested in the sales and the profit from a specific drug in the market.       

            Moreover, going back to the 1950’s and to Henrietta Lacks story, some of the research that was done at the time was very unethical since research was not regulated at the time and very cruel situations were known. One example is when George Hyatt, a Navy doctor created a wound a volunteer office’s arm and place the cells across the officer’s hand. The cells grown but Hyatt found out that the cell were cancerous cells. Hyatt intension for this unethical study was that doctors could use skin-cell transplant to treat wounds. One can say that the drive of this study was mainly fame along with profit. Another unethical issue in the book was when a virologist named Chester Southam injected people with HeLa (cancerous) cells in order to see if the humans will grow tumors knowing the rats in his lab did. However, people did not know they were being injected with cancerous cells and what he told them was that he was testing their immune system. This indicate the importance of regulation regarding research it is very important to be ethical no matter the field.

Blog #2

The process of scientific inquiry in the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks really amazed me. This happened some time ago, but sill not so long from when I was born and it amazes me how new a lot of medical procedures, drugs and research are. What I didn’t like was when the duty of mass culturing cells got taken over by businessmen. But I feel that this was bound to happen because of simple supply and demand. The HeLa cells were a scientific breakthrough and were so easy to produce, it made sense to mass produce for profit. I definitely am not in favor of big business but living in a capitalistic society things like these are bound to happen, this is an extremely smart move for any business man. As the story continues more history of research was brought about, for instance the men at the Ohio state prison. The researcher used prisoners who agreed to be used as subjects. Although he apparently received consent to practice on them I still do not feel that all the men n jail regardless of criminal history should be targeted. Some were interviewed later claiming to be doing this to payback society for all they have done. I do not feel that every subject in the jail willingly participated in the research. I feel there were small, ridiculous incentives that a man with no rights would be willing to take in exchange for being used as a subject. Also, the same research Chester Southam conducted more research on humans. He began to inject cancer cells into patients without telling them. Again I feel certain people were targeted and that even when sick couldn’t do much to defend and take care of themselves. When he went to trial, he defended himself and his beliefs saying that cancer isn’t such a bad thing, yet telling people would cause fear in them and would possibly cause patients to reject participation in the study. When he was finally brought to trial, not much changed. He was put on probation for a year, and then became the president of the American Association for Cancer Research. He was one of the few public cases, but I cannot even begin to imagine how many cases weren’t exposed. The Numberg trials, showed the disgusting possibilities that were occurring and I am sure they were even worse. But it leads me to think, was this all nessecary for where we are today. We know so much more than we did hundreds of years ago, but within these last 60 years the medical and science industry has been booming. We have amazing medical machines, procedures, and drugs to treat so many diseases and viruses. Is this all possible because of these few scientists that had questions, and didn’t hold back in trying to answer them. There are many sides to the story; the same goes in this time 2012. I am working in a lab where we conduct a study on rabbits, which I personally do not care much for. I see animals as life, just as see humans. They have personalities, but little rights. We have tons of restrictions when dealing with them, but still they are used to test on, kept in cages. And are deprived of a life, they were created for our research, that is all. It hurts me growing up in a family with dogs that grew up with my family and I. Yet I want to go into research and study metabolism and the body, and possibly my best subjects will be animals. This is where is face decisions, and either change my mentality about animal subjects, or attempt to study it differently.  Therefore in conclusion I feel that there are many risks when conducting research as well as benefits. One of the biggest risks is endangering numerous people’s lives and health. This can also hurt families, because they can pass it on to next generations, which can mutate and become something else. Sadly, it can be very beneficial to the medical, and pharmaceutical companies because this drives their research and allows better breakthroughs and medicines, which in turn produces enormous amounts of profit.  Yes, it benefits the people because it can cure diseases, and fight off bacteria, and kill viruses, but we all know how insurance companies work, and that’s another problem.  

blogger 2

Israel Santana

Blogger part 2

The sense ownership and possible interconnection with tissues that are no longer attached to the body can blind a person from the logics behind the scientific processes and/or intentions to further advance and expand research in the science. Ethics plays a significant role, considering there is no obligation to notify a patient when removed tissues are going to be taken to be further examined with the intention of random studies. This study implies the greater success of an individual, as well as a discovery or great finding that don’t acknowledge the donor who greatly contributed to this study. Another controversial topic is the money involved in science discoveries and their beneficiaries. This topic of wealth or even “social class” can be considered of greater moral sensitivity. The lower income families are usually the ones with greater medical complications dealing with much severe illnesses that can be due to the lack of funds to treat such. If a sample is taken from this particular group of patients, without their consent this group does not benefit from it due to their lack of resources and are ultimately being taken advantage of.

 In a way we all have some obligation to support and help advance science, but the subjects of morals and ethics can interfere. In the case of the Henrietta lacks, there seemed to be a metaphysical, both spiritual and emotional attachment to her cells that haunted her family. Even though the tissues that are removed from one’s body are no longer useful or are attached to the body, there is a sense of owner ship. We as human are attached to these tissues at one point. An example is the bond that a mother has with the growing child. Although this is a big leap it has significance. It is a great bond that is sowed through the pregnancy and when a tragedy happens in the case of a miscarriage, a deep loss and pain is under gone. The body is a cluster of growing cells that I themselves hold our entire identity.

Michelle Reid
August 2, 2012
Writing Workshop

Blog Number II

Our healthcare system is configured in a profit by profit basis; what new discoveries are accomplished, will only reach the few who can gain access to it. As a capitalist nation, the United States works by the trickle down method, where technological advances in medicine reach the public long after they have become available to the wealthy. In the book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” written by Rebecca Skloot, we note several cases where altruistic ideas transform the poor and uneducated into caged subjects waiting on experimentation. The impoverished are trammeled by the demand of technological progression and their constraints span beyond poverty and inequality to the oppression of the masses.

David Korn of Harvard University states, “I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research.” The idea that everyone has an obligation to contribute is an idea that assumes an even distribution of the discovery. Korn’s statement is wholly void of realistic situations occurring world-wide, his opinions are ignorant of social theory, particularly the structural constraints placed on certain demographic groups.

            Henrietta Lacks, a poor, uneducated, African American young woman in the 1950’s reported to the only medical facility that would treat her; John Hopkins Hospital where she was treated for cervical cancer. In “The Place of Radium in Treatment of Cancer,” by Antoine Lacassagne (1938), the most technologically advanced method of cancer treatment is detailed. Radium was considered the perfect aid to all cancer, it disintegrated cells that were pathogenic, and the treatment was completely versatile. Lacassagne details the countless applications of this treatment, spanning from cervical to cancers of the mouth. The methods in this journal also reveal the proper utilization of x-ray therapies as only useful in superficial cancers, of little thickness and depth. It clearly states that previous trials done to treat more deeply situated cancers were unsuccessful due to the lack of penetration by x-rays (10). Henrietta Lacks’ cancer therapy had gone awry; Skloot mentions, “The skin from Henrietta’s breasts to her pelvis was charred a deep black from the radiation” (48). Although Lacks received modern therapy for her cancer, it is hard to ignore the fact that Lacassagne paper, published twelve years prior to Lacks’ diagnosis, was common knowledge to practitioners at the time. This fact only begs the question that Lacks’ charred skin was due to neglect, malpractice, and experimentation.

The mental and physical well being of a woman like Henrietta Lacks was by no means a priority for practitioners. The patient-practitioner relationship between Lacks and Dr. Wharton (the physician who attended her at John Hopkins Hospital), was that of tending to the inferior. If the opportunity to perform research on patients occurred; no moral dilemma would arise. When Korn states that the “bits and pieces” of every being belongs to the progression of science by moral obligation, what is meant in this context is that the bits of the poor are the obligation of the educated and rich.  

There exists immense confusion among the kind of moral obligation authority figures in science have to answer science’s burning questions. The Crownsville State Hospital, formerly known as the Hospital for the Negro Insane, provided a surplus of “unwanted” patients during the late 1950’s; this was the ideal ground for medical research. Elsie, Lacks’ eldest daughter, was admitted into Crownsville at a young age because she was a mentally disabled epileptic child. It is said that Elsie was subjected into  “Pneumoencephalography and skull x-ray” studies which involved “drilling holes into the skulls of research subjects draining the fluid surrounding their brains…to allow crisp x-rays of the brain through the skull” (276). The experiments that many patients like Elsie have been subjected to, are arguably of seldom importance; there was no reason why the necessity for the perfect photograph should entail the complete demoralization and torture of any being. Korn’s aforementioned statement does not distinguish the extent of the contribution of human bodies; in essence the patients in Crownsville Hospital have become the “tissue scraps” of society. Elsie Lacks’ case only serves to display the dearth of constraints placed upon those who seek to use the disadvantaged for their personal gain.
            The consequences generated by healthcare systems in wealthy nations have wholly intended the ramifications that have come about from the advancement in medical research. The rise of neoliberalism has crept into all aspects of politics, economics, and healthcare, and has caused the wide spread massacre of the economically disadvantaged (19).  In the text, Infections and Inequalities by Paul Farmer, he describes the state of urgency in the nation of Haiti; curable, preventable infectious diseases have generated a modern plague. Farmer recounts cases where wealthy nations have provided outdated medications for the ever-evolving Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The reason for this is simply put, it was not cost-effective.

The “free market” ideology in science has contributed significantly to the cases of immorality in the biomedical field. The progression of biomedical science should not have been paved with the remnants of those who have suffered the injustices and horrors of oppression. Those in poverty will continue to become an increasingly vulnerable target of unequal healthcare. As long as the economic philosophy of neoliberalism exists, and as long as public sentiment adheres to the ideology that Korn resides by, equal treatment of all beings will cease to exist.  

Research and Bioethics (Topic 2)

Part 2 Research and Bioethics (Topic two)

Scientists were so curious about diseases that they did not care if Henrietta cells were taken without her consent. Hsu referred to Henrietta as a “famous thing”, which implies that she did not look at Henrietta as a human-being. If Henrietta was Caucasians, then maybe things would have gone differently. In the 1950s, African Americans were not considered human-beings so that played a huge role in how Henrietta cells were taken without her permission. Since medicine was a work in progress with HeLa cells, scientists took risks in research such as injecting patients with HeLa cells. Scientists put people lives at risk for the sake of research, but research should not be conducted in that way. I understand scientists wanted to grasp an understanding on polio and cancer, but patients should have been informed on the procedure they were getting done. The doctors were wrong to take Henrietta cells without asking. If they would have asked, then Henrietta probably would have consented. Henrietta was person who helped people in need, so I think she would have allowed doctors to take her cells if they gave her the option. Research should be conducted in a way that does not put innocent people in danger. People are not lab rats and should not be treated like they cannot think for themselves. If researchers ask for volunteers, then maybe people would agree to help out. There are some people who actually want to help make a difference in the world. Research should benefit everyone and not just one scientist who is trying to become famous. I want to conduct research as well, but I am not going to take someone’s cells without their permission to advance my knowledge on diseases.

Blog#2(choice 1)

             In the second part of the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, written by Rebecca Skloot, the author mainly focuses on the ethical background of research. Research is a very difficult thing to do especially for biology related fields because their main focus is to better understand the human body. However, in order to understand the human body and how it works against certain diseases, viruses, and bacteria, scientist have to test their hypothesis on humans. In today’s society research, medicine, and science it self is extremely restricted due to the fact that the health of a person has now become a business. The HeLa cells that were taken from Henrietta are the only human tissue that scientist can use to actually find more information about human beings. The fact that scientist took those cells from Henrietta without her or her family knowing is completely unethical, but without it medicine would have not gotten very far. Sadly, this topic is very controversial because even though Henrietta died due to her malignant tumor her cells from that tumor have helped millions of people.

            Furthermore, David Korn from Harvard University simply states that everybody is obligated to willingly give samples of their tissue to help for the sake of others. That statement is very true and I agree with Korn strongly because this can only benefit mankind and research. However, due to past events such as Nuremberg trials where scientist go to extremes to gain knowledge about the human body, such as cutting a body wide open while the patient is still alive to study organ function, ruined research for today’s scientist. After this horrific event the field of medicine also changed, because restrictions were placed upon the doctor’s ability to treat their patients to the best of their abilities. Hospitals and research have mainly focused of profit so they never want to be risky or it can really hurt their institution. It is exposed in media often on how doctors are limited by laws and also how the system works in the hospital. Shows such as house, grey’s anatomy, and scrubs portrays how hospitals segregate people’s quality of treatment through class, basically the richer the person the better the treatment. Also another way doctors are limited in doing their job is getting the permission of a patient to perform a procedure even when they are close to dying. Unfortunately, it is kind of sad that a person’s life is put on the line because of money.  

It is mainly the same with research because researchers are so restricted with their subjects. Researchers are only able to test their hypothesis with other organisms rather than humans. HeLa cells are the only human based subjects they can test, I think that it is ethically wrong to take cells from other people without them knowing, or performing test on patients without them knowing. I think that David Korn brings up a good point that people should give up their cells if it is going to help a great amount of people. However, I disagree with his statement that it benefits everyone, because it doesn’t always happen that way. A great example is Henrietta’s situation where medicine flourished but her family stayed very poor even with Henrietta’s contribution to their success. Furthermore, another downside of having a profit based health care in terms of research is that research based treatments are very expensive. Although they work extremely well compared to regular treatments not everyone can afford the treatment so it doesn’t benefit a lot of people. For example, Aids has been a serious virus these couple of years but researcher found a treatment that can potentially prevent the aids virus from spreading. They do this by using reverse transcriptase inhibitors which prevents the virus’ reverse transcriptase enzyme from working and eventually keeps mRNA from being converted into cDNA thus not allowing the virus to multiply. This type of treatment is one of many and they cost a great amount of money, the treatment is very unaffordable by the middle and lower class however it is cheap change for the high class individuals such as Ervin Magic Johnson. This is very ethically incorrect because research based finding are suppose to help everybody not just the high elites.

BLOG #2: Research & Bioethics

REFLECT ON ONE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR YOUR NEXT BLOG:

One of the arguments against giving people legal ownership of their tissues is summarized in the following quote from David Korn, vice provost for research at Harvard University: “I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research.” However, in a profit-driven health care system, all citizens do not have equal access to the treatments and medications made possible by tissue and cell research. What are the intended and unintended consequences of a profit-driven health care system?

                                                                                          OR

Discuss the process of scientific inquiry in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Examine the often contradictory forces of altruism and profit as they influenced research related to HeLa. What are the risks and benefits of allowing profit to guide research? What are the obstacles involved with conducting research purely for altruistic reasons? (Random House)

He La Cells Part 1

Jefferson, Jameka Shonte’

He La Cells Part 1

20 July 2012

He La Cells Part 1

I am learning so much about how African American were treated in the 1950s.Rebecca
Skloot knows more about the African American history than I do and I am an African American. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks makes me want to learn more about the African American history and be aware of their struggle for freedom.

Part one was very disturbing to read because segregation played a major role in how Henrietta was treated as a patient. If Henrietta was a Caucasian patient, then maybe she would have gotten treatment earlier as opposed to when her condition gotten worse. Chapter eight has a quote that demonstrates how African Americans patients did not receive the same treatment as Caucasian patients:

“According to Howard Jones, Henrietta got the same care any white patient would have; the biopsy, the radium treatment, and radiation were all standard for the day. But several studies have shown that black patients were treated and hospitalized at later stages of their illness than white patients. And once hospitalized, they got fewer pain medication, and had high mortality rates” (64)

Since African Americans never questioned a Caucasian doctor, then Henrietta probably thought it was too soon to get treatment. I think even if Henrietta voiced her opinion, then the doctors still would not have believed her.

            As the days went on, Henrietta was slowly dying and scientists did not care whatsoever. Scientists treated Henrietta as a lab rat and only cared about making vaccines. It is obvious that George Gey did not care what kind of condition Henrietta was in because her cells were the key to understanding different types of diseases. The doctors were helpful to a certain extend; however, they wrote lies in her medical file to so they do not get in trouble. They could have at least told Henrietta that the radium treatment will make her infertile.

            I do not think that it should matter what type of ethnic background Rebecca comes from. Rebecca had to prove to Roland Pattillo that she was not another Caucasian person trying to write a journal about He La cells. She spent almost ten years writing the book, which means that she wanted people to feel the pain Henrietta went through as oppose to writing a generic biography. Rebecca makes Henrietta come alive in the book and I can get a sense of what type of person Henrietta was.

I apologize for posting my blog so late.

Reflection on Henrietta Lacks

        The story of Henrietta Lacks brings to light the issue that the American Healthcare system had evolved from the injustices and immoral treatment of the American public. Skloot, the author of the text, informs the reader in such an intimacy that it leaves no room but to exercise the fact that we too have been betrayed by the healthcare system. Injustices such as those enacted in Tuskegee Syphillis experiment (1932-1972), and the studies that were undertaken at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital (1962), depict the magnitude of unethical treatment that researchers have taken in the name of science. The poor, disabled, and minority community have always been the driving force in research discoveries, by way of the use of their bodies, the disrespect for the lives, and the lack of acknowledgment for their part in the progression of medical research.

As far as federal laws go, Henrietta Lacks belonged to the demographic that had the least rights among any other race or gender. The injustices committed against the black community as whole do not begin to amount to those done solely on black women. Skloot mentions that Henriettaís family had come about through slave-slave owner relationships; these were in no case romantic, or heroic relations. Slave owners were known to rape the young women that, ìbelonged,î to them, as a form of pleasure and dominance. Living under the oppression of her family history, Day, and the medical staff at John Hopkins Hospital, it appeared that Henrietta Lacks was actually a very likely candidate for the removal of her tissue and the treatment she received. In fact Skloot makes it clear that this was a common practice at the time. Henriettaís story was one of many other black women who suffered the same unethical treatment, yet it was taken an extra step as they exploited the use of her cells world-wide.
      
        A dark part of Henriettaís life expands through the life of Elsie, Henriettaís oldest daughter. She was born mentally disabled and was soon placed into a hospital for the ìNegro Insane.î Later in the book Skloot details the horrors behind Elsieís untimely death, as she had been used in epilepsy studies. Elsie along with many other patients was among the largest clientele used in research studies. Elsieís files revealed a deformed face that had been repeatedly transformed by unnecessary treatment.

(sorry unfinished)

Michelle Reid

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

            The book commences with Henrietta feeling sick, in a time where doctors were poorly available to colored people, and education was a privilege, it is clear that people in this time were in wonder. She felt a pain in her stomach, which she sought to her cousins for advice; to the best of their knowledge they advised her that it was probably aches from pregnancy. When Henrietta soon became pregnant, it made sense to blame the “knot” in her stomach on the pregnancy. A woman knows her body, and as Henrietta insisted, something was wrong. She went to the hospital and what amazed me was her medical record. She had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, and syphilis prior to this doctor visit. When the doctor examined her cervix and ran tests on the lump, it tested positive for cervical cancer. From there on, the book goes into a lot of history about Henrietta and her family, which really make everything a lot clearer. What really shocked me was the amount of colored people that had been diagnosed with STD’s. It makes sense when the book explains how her grandfather and other men would take their tobacco to get sold, and would stay in a warehouse over night. Where the white were privileged enough to sleep in lofts and beds, the colored were sent to a basement and left to sleep in filth. Aside from sleeping in filth, the men would have careless fun. There was gambling, drinking, and worst of all prostitution. It makes sense that these men would possibly have sex with prostitutes and then come home have sex with their wives, and pass diseases. Who is to blame? Is it the prostitutes, the men, or society? The colored didn’t have the proper sanitary conditions, and the men mostly forced upon sex at that time to the woman. There were no condoms, no STD check, no free clinics, and no birth control. The only way you knew you had it was when you finally realized something out of the ordinary, sometimes pain, and went to the doctor to find out you had some disease. It is important to take into account how poorly educated these people were, so for a doctor to tell them they have gonorrhea or syphilis it seems many disregarded it. For some reason in the opening chapter where Henrietta’s medical history is explained, when she was told about both STD’s she either declined or never went back for treatment. As the cancer intensifies throughout the book Henrietta remains strong, and tells no one. This might have been out of embarrassment or pride.  What really interested me was the radium treatment. As it is known now radium is extremely dangerous, but this is what was used to treat her cancer. To treat her cancer they sowed a tube in her cervix, and allowed it to react, in hope of killing the cancer cells. Now it is easy to blame the doctors now that we know of the danger, but this time was a time of experimentation. All these medical procedures if not new, had little to no literature to back them up. We are lucky that modern medicine is at its prime, the experimentation age is over, and for the most part diseases can be cured. Unfortunately, Henrietta like many other colored patients were experiments. When Henrietta’s case worsened and she became a resident in her hospital doctors didn’t know how to treat her. So they attempted practically everything they knew, for the cancer, they blasted her body with radiation after radiation, which made her skin charred. For her pain they tried morphine, Demerol, Dromoran, and even alcohol injections straight into her spine. Tumors kept appearing and appearing all over her body, and still they attempted to “cure” her. When in reality they were killing her. Now for an uneducated black person at this time, it would make sense to avoid the doctor because one can say I was fine up until I went to the doctor. Going to the doctor would turn out to be “worse” in some cases like Henrietta’s, also these poor colored people knew nothing about science, and could barely if that read. They would allow the doctors to do as they pleased, because they were white, and educated. This made it easy for blacks to become experiments. Henrietta was a living experiment, and those cells that were taken from her are still alive. 

the spirit love, and rasicm of HE LA

Israel Santana
7-20-12

The immortal life of Henrietta lacks.

In the book the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks there are several key issues that form the book’s plot racism, medical ethics, spirit and love. Henrietta was a black woman who grew up in a tobacco plantation in Clover, Virginia. She had little education and at a young age married her cousin which was the norm then. She moved to Baltimore where her life would take a hard turn. The story begins January 29, 1951 during the heart of segregation and Jim Crow laws in Baltimore. Henrietta Lacks goes in to John Hopkins hospital to check out what she called was “a knot I her womb”. She had told several family members about it before and assumed that it was maybe the “bad blood” her husband David Lacks had brought home from his infidelities. This would later be the key of why Henrietta’s cancer cells would become her ultimate demise and a revolutionary step forward for medical science.

The book is written and narrated by journalist Rebecca Skloot who came across the name HE LA in biology class when her instructor told the class all the marvelous discoveries and medicines HE LA cells helped developed. He said that the cells came from a black woman. When Rebecca asks who she was he had no answer for her this would become the start of an emotional, historical and scientific journey towards the true origin of these cells and it would uncover the turmoil that came from the Henrietta’s cells.

 During 1950’s many black Americans were accustomed of never question any medical advice. During her exam the gynecologist found she had a tumor near her cervix. After her visit Henrietta never brought up her condition to her husband, she didn’t want to alarm or burden anyone so she went on with her life. During her exam the doctor took a tissue sample of her cervical cancer to study it. During the time Dr. George Grey was head of tissue culture research at Hopkins hospital. He was developing methods to grow cell cultures outside the body with no results until he came across Henrietta cells. Henrietta returned to the hospital for surgery and gave consent for invasive surgery. The technique for treating cervical carcinoma was to use radium which was a white radioactive metal that glowed blue. This was a double edged sword because it caused serious side effects and would kill any cells in come in contact with including further mutations in cells. Before the surgery no one told Henrietta that they were not collecting tissue samples of her tumor cells in order to grow outside her body nor would she ever know how important the cell would become to science.

The people that grew her cells worked under Dr. George Grey, they were his wife Margret Grey a surgical nurse, and Mary Kubrick a lab technician. These two women were vital to the creation of the HE LA cells growth. Margaret was the one who developed the procedure to create the medium in which the cells grow. The cells were transferred and monitored for several days with the expectation that they would die like the rest but they continued to grow and multiply at an incredible rate. Soon Dr. George Grey had found what he was looking for, an immortal cell that can self replicate outside the body. While Henrietta’s radium treatment continued she lived her life like normal hanging out with family members and taking care of her three kids, David Jr., Deborah, and Joe. However one child was missing Elsie the oldest daughter. Elsie was born with a form of retardation which was diagnosed as “idiocy “not knowing how to take care of her after Henrietta’s fight with cancer Elsie was sent to the Baltimore, at Crownsville State hospital for the negro insane.

Henrietta returned to the hospital complaining the cancer was spreading. The medical reports stated there were no signs of the cancer reoccurring. However the abdominal pain continued and the doctors took x-rays that showed the cancer came back aggressively her urethra was blocked which made it hard for her to urinate. The cancer was diagnosed inoperable and she was sent home. Through the course of her treatment Henrietta didn’t show any off her symptoms the only thing that showed her eyes beginning to sink in. the doctor began to use aggressive technique in order to stop the tumors from growing. The radiation d=treatment left her abdomen charred and the cancer continued to grow inside her.

In order to uncover exactly who the women behind the HE LA cells were the author Rebecca Skloot had to go through a gauntlet of dead ends and obstacle. She had to gain the trust of the family and some of the people acquainted to them. She would get in contact with David Lacks himself but soon Rebecca would find out she wasn’t the first and only one to try and uncover the truth behind Henrietta Lacks. David would tell her that Hopkins stole his wife cells and they killed her, he was upset and he wouldn’t talk further about it. Rebecca had to do a little investigative work, so she soon found Mrs. Speed. A grocery store owner and close friend to the Lacks family. Ms. Speed told just how deep the turmoil the lacks family was going through due to the creation of the HE LA cells. Many reporters, film makers and scientist continued to exploit the family for their own gain without giving any information as to where how of what happened to their mother and why they took her cells without anyone’s consent.

Henrietta died October 4, 1951, she underwent excruciating painful treatments and the cancer continued to litter her body, she would never know that some where her cells thrived and grew while she was dying, her cells would become bigger than she ever was in more than one way. But her spirit and life would continue to haunt those that knew and loved her, until the truth behind her life and unforgiving demise was uncovered. And the one that would step up to do that was a white female journalist.

Reflection on Henrietta Lacks

Despite understanding the suffering of Henrietta Lacks, Deborah lacks, and essentially the Lacks family, I believe that it is hard to even start the discussion of the unethical practices in science and medicine in relation to disadvantage and oppressed communities before even discussing the ontological issues that present themselves.  I say this because if society, whether mainstream or in general, cannot recognize various ethnic groups, and in this case blacks, as being human and essentially capable of suffering, capable of reasoning, having similar social and moral values, such as work ethic and valuing family, then I feel it is hard to acknowledge their suffering and the injustices that the Lacks family has suffered.

In the beginning of Henrietta Lacks, the author Skloot voices that she had tried her best to preserve the language, because if altered,  as highlighted by a family member, this would be taking away their life, their experiences, and themselves. Unfortunately, as can be observed through Skloot’s writing I feel despite this effort she still has to go through the extra effort to accomplish just that. For example describing the upbringing of Deborah lacks, Skloot juxtaposes her upbringing with that of Deborah. In essence, the safe, secure, pleasant upbringing versus an environment described as the most dangerous and poorest neighborhood. It’s as if the reader would not be able to understand the challenges Deborah faced without this contrast.

Reminding me of this action in which the suffering of a black person must be juxtaposed by a white person to be understood was when I watched the film A Time to Kill. This was a film entailing a father, who is black, being prosecuted for killing the men, who are white, that raped, beat, and urinated on his child. I remember how the lawyer had avoided the father from being found guilty by describing the story of what this little black girl had gone through, but in the end of doing so had told the jury to picture the girl as being white.

Though not directly, explaining the reasoning as to why the lawyer said to picture the girl suffering to be white and why black suffering is not understood is the author of Red, White, and Black, which is a book that analyzes the portrayal of whites, blacks, and Native Americans in cinema and its implications. The author, Frank Wilderson III writes, “The Middle Passage, “wiped out [his or her] metaphysics… his [or her] customs and sources on which they are based.” Jews went into Auschwitz and came out as Jews. Africans went into the ships and came out as Blacks. The former is a Human holocaust; the latter is a Human and a metaphysical holocaust… “The black has no ontological resistance in the eyes of the white man” or, more precisely, in the eyes of Humanity. He goes onto say referring to the film Antwone Fisher, “Before Antwone Fisher can deliver the slave into relational presence it must clear the hurdles… slave has no resistance in the eyes of the Other, which is not to say that the slave does not suffer but like a tree that falls in the woods where no person is present, Black suffering has no auditor”. Here the slave is the term referring to blacks in the film. In essence these quotes describe why society cannot understand, or comprehend, the sufferings of blacks who are seen as non-human.

Nevertheless, I feel as if Deborah Lacks, whether consciously or not, understands this.  Skloot described how Deborah Lacks began to speak in a confusing manic manner for forty-five minutes. I thought this because she talks about her great grandfather being a slave owner, the family being mixed, and a cousin being Puerto Rican. Every topic Deborah voiced are sometimes taught in black communities as being better than black such as one being mixed and therefore being a step closer to being understood because one is a step closer to being white; hence, why I also felt that this was a result of Deborah really wanting someone to listen to her story as well as her pain.

In conclusion, Henrietta Lacks was not able exercise agency over the smallest component of her body, I feel, is a result of ontological challenges that blacks along with other minorities face daily. Consequently, I feel the discussion of unethical practices in medicine and science is not only challenging, but can be misguided when not understanding what society defines as human and the rights they’re entitled to and those not seen as human and whether they have any rights at all.