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.