GREETINGS

"Her name was Henrietta Lacks, but scientists know her as HeLa. She was a poor black tabacco farmer whose cells--taken without her knowledge in 1951--became one of the most important tools in medicine, vital for developing the polio vaccine, cloning, gene mapping, and more."


Welcome to the MORE Program’s book blog. As we read and discuss this year’s One Campus, One Book selection, I welcome all of you to reflect and write about Henrietta’s enduring legacy. Writing helps us convey ideas, solve problems, and understand our changing world and what better way to do this than through Skloot’s story of the HeLa cells. Science, medicine, bioethics, technology, race, class, and gender in America are just a few of the issues that I encourage you to blog about.

Blog #3

Story telling has been around since the beginning of time. Before the written word there was oral story telling. From one generation to the next stories from the past have been told and retold. So the fact that someone besides the "main character" of a story is the one to tell the story is not new. Sometimes there are better suited people, those with the gift of telling a story in such a way that will make an impact. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks  we are told of how hard Deborah Lacks tried to get the word/story out of her mother's contribution to science but with no avail. There were many factors that would have contributed to the fact that she alone was not able to get the recognition she so greatly wanted. One reason might have been that she did not know who to tell. She was passing flyers around her neighborhood where most people are so occupied with their daily struggles no one would care enough about Henrietta Lacks and her cells. Another reason is that no one she spoke to besides Rebecca Skloot cared about Henrietta Lacks as a person not just as a the source of the cells that they might be using or a cash source.

The right to reap the benefits of the book should be shared. It took a lot of time and hard work on Rebecca Skloot's part to get this work out. She does deserve some of the benefits associated with the book. But the family does also. Without the cooperation of Deborah Lacks, Rebecca Skloot would have a very weak story to tell. The story of Henrietta Lacks cannot be told without those who knew her the most; her family. Deborah is, I believe, entitled to some of the benefits, even though she says multiple times that she just wants people to know who Henrietta Lacks was.

As for the race of the person writing the book, it is hard to tell. In our present day society we know that some racism still exists. I hope that this is changing and will continue to change but there are places where anyone who has a good story to tell will be heard. Henrietta Lacks was a mystery to many and even though others before Rebbeca Skloot have tried to tell the story, she was able to get it to the right people and get it publicized to those who would care. So in a way who cares what Rebbeca Skloots race is, she was able to do what others couldn't.

Blog #3

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?

            An author is a person who has the ability to give existence to anything. Their words can imprint an image of what they are attempting to get across. With such power, comes an enormous amount of responsibility because define a person they speak about. When it comes to an author that writes about a persons life they are only able to express that individual life from their point of view. Therefore the reader may not be able to understand all the hardships and struggles that a character may face if the writer can’t fully understand and go through the same experiences as the character once did. A characters story may not be fully told if it does not come from the character own words. In the case of Henrietta Lacks, the readers can get a sense of her hardships, but the people who talked about her hardship could have had a mental block and were not able to fully express what she has really gone through. A main speaker on Henrietta Lacks was her husband, but it may have been difficult to express the hardships of the woman he truly loved because it is a difficult task to talk about therefore a persons mind tends to block it out.

            Although Rebecca Skloot never spoke to Henrietta Lacks individually, she truly tried to tell her story to the world by putting her self in the story as well. She never gave up on reaching Henrietta’s family and she risked her life travelling and searching for Henrietta’s family members all by her self. Not only did she risk her life but she developed a relationship with Henrietta’s family that allowed access to Henrietta’s personal life. It is much more valuable for writer to put themselves in the story because it gives the reader better understanding of Henrietta’s lifestyle.

            Telling someone’s stories may give the writer some benefit but I getting the story out there is much more important than one person gaining fame or money out of it. When the world and children read about Henrietta’s cells and the struggles she went through it is a lesson that everyone can benefit from just by sparking up a conversation about it.  This authorship should be appropriate if the character is not able to get their own story across. The only power a writer has is telling the story but it is up to the reader to believe it because everyone has the freedom to discuss their own opinions and find out about facts that may not be real. A writer has every right to talk about another individual life as long as teaches readers a valuable lesson that will help them in life. If we did not hear the stories we hear now then, it would minimize the amount of knowledge and concern people have now.

TILoHL Blog post #3

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? 

Be it in fictitious or factual publications, an author’s objective should be to tell a story to his or her reader, either as means to inform or to entertain (even both). However, many fine lines are treaded regarding authority around the information the author uses, often surrounding net profits and fame. In Rebecca Skloot’s case, the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, she sought to inform her readers of the tragic history surrounding the biologically important HeLa cells, both from the angles of the scientists involved with the cells, and the many hearsay stories surrounding Henrietta Lacks herself, much of which can be backed mostly by testimony.

First and foremost, I must comment that I do not particularly agree with any one of the sides in this dichotomous setup. Personally, I feel that Rebecca Skloot is merely giving a historical and informative viewpoint of past events in Lacks’ life. True as it may be that Skloot would never personally understand Lacks’ tragic past, Skloot’s authorship in this case was not centered solely on the basis of profit or gain, especially when you consider that many of such events occurred at a time where it would be physically impossible. However so, it is also true that unless some form of royalties are issued to those families’ or persons’ whose namesakes being used, the use of their information and stories can be viewed as unethical or abusive.

In my personal opinion, if Skloot had not done such intrusive investigation, the historical analysis of the lady behind the world-famous HeLa cells would likely have remained a mystery to the general public, likely requiring extensive research by an individual in order to make any leeway in discovering more information. Not to mention that this publication served to aid progress in varying sociological and humanist aspects of the scientific world. Considering many events in the book, both unethical treatment of Henrietta Lacks and the horrifyingly abusive techniques carried out by scientists, a reader who is likely not intensively involved with biological sciences will then be informed of the questionable past of many scientific progress, but is also exposed to the progressive research allotted by the study of the HeLa cells. These points, however, do not make it fair for the author to receive all of the privileges that come with such historical story telling.

The point that we only hear of such stories from white women is both a moot yet awkwardly spot on point. Many stories told by the oppressed have survived the rough wear and tear of history, yet in the era present within the story of Henrietta Lacks, many stories of the slaves or abused minorities are now just an undiscoverable part of history. Furthermore, stories told by white women at the time would likely survive with better accuracy as they would likely be literate and able to document such stories on paper rather than word-of-mouth. Not to say that the stories would all be lost with time, but rather the stories’ accuracy would remain considerably consistent throughout history.

All in all, I must adhere to the idea that this type of authorship, as potentially abusive as it can be, is necessary in order to preserve history. This type of authorship, however, should not be the privilege of anyone until consent from the appropriate involved persons is given. Also, some form of reparation or repayment should be issued for parties involved within the story’s publication. This ensures that the abuse present in the earlier segregation days would not be repeated in our current time as all involved persons would have a valid output in what is to be decided with the use of their personal information. 

Blog # 3

           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? 

           Rebecca Skloot's life experience is drastically different than that of Henrietta Lacks. As a writer, however, Rebecca must overcome that barrier and attempt to enter a different world to tell Henrietta's story. This is necessary to make an earnest effort to accurately tell a story that needs to be told. The voice of an author, thus, must be without color, race, or background so as to not distract the reader from the point of the message. The writer can be of any background since it is only the message that matters. In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, although it is Rebecca Skloot, a white woman, that leads readers on a trip through a remorseful past of segregation in America, her background is of no concern since the Skloot attempts to portray the story through the eyes of Henrietta as true as possible. 

           When Skloot began her endeavor to discover the person behind HeLa, her sincere fascination with the subject motivated her to piece together the story through interviews, historical records, and some creative freedom. Despite the cultural and socioeconomic divide, from the day she first heard about the HeLa cells, it was a subject she was interested in pursuing. Much of the information regarding the origins of these cells was not reliable, thus she took it upon herself to investigate. The question about whether or not she is qualified to write about Henrietta Lacks is irrelevant simply because of her interest. If only a black woman with a background similar to that of Henrietta's would be allowed to write about these issues, and not a white woman (or man), then it is no different to say that race and class must be separated once again. Stories as powerful as that of Henrietta's life and death (and life of her cells) deserve to be disseminated without blanket restrictions based on the source.

           It is the readers that must decide whether or not a story is worthy of praise, not wide-ranging statements about race or socioeconomic background. There is no “right” to be earned, in the sense that factors beyond one's control determine one's eligibility to care, to be able to speak about human plight. Skloot may have committed a few faux pas by taking liberties of filling holes in the story for things that are unknowable about henrietta, but the message does not change. It may even seem condescending to some that Skloot explains in the preface that she will quote conversations and interviews as genuinely as possible; grammatical inconsistencies would be included as if preserving something akin to an anthropologist preserving the natural state of his subjects, another argument can be made that she is simply trying to remove herself from the narrative by allowing the authenticity of the world Henrietta Lacks lived in to become the focal point. Although some detractors may argue that Skloot's perspective cannot be legitimate because she is not like Henrietta, the plight of others should not be determined by superficial factors. The human condition is universal – empathy is universal - and so is the change that touched the world because of Henrietta, thus the right to tell the story belongs to anyone that understands its significance.  

TILoHeLa Blog #3

Antonio Garcia

August 15, 2013 

TILoHeLa Blog #3

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? 

Prior to 1865 slavery had not been abolished in the United States. During this time many pieces pertaining to anti-slavery had been written. The authors felt that writing the accounts of the slaves life’s gave them a voice and others awareness of the injustices that had been done to them. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot accounts the story about Henrietta Lacks. The book details the struggle Lacks had in combating cancer and the unfair treatment she had received for being African-American and of low financial status. The book accounted the origin of the famous “HeLa” which contributed to scientific research and eventually help find cures for some diseases such as polio. 

The controversy with the story is that the tissue samples were taken without the knowledge that they would be used for research. Her family where not notified about the research until years later; and remarkably the cells still existed, which was something the family hard a difficult time dealing with. Something that should be examined is that if Skloot had the right to write a book about Lacks, especially since the book was very detailed and personal. Given that many injustices had been done to Lacks and her family, one can argue that Skloot wrote the book with intensions of informing the public of the wrongs that had been done to her, and to pay gratitude for the life she lived.

One can argue that Skloot does not have the right to publish a book about Lacks life given that it is an invasion of privacy however, Lacks family felt that their should be told. Lacks family was generous enough to share their story with the public although that was not always the case. As Skloot first started writing the book she had a difficult time finding back round knowledge about Lacks. When she first came into contact with the Lacks family they were not as open to talk and often shunned her away. The Lacks family through out their entire life’s have always been bombarded with mail and phone calls from researchers. They felt that they were being used, given all the questions about their medical related back rounds. Especially since they do not have proper medical treatment themselves. The researched only pursued what they wanted and gave no condolences to the family. Even as much time has passed no one informed them of what “HeLa” cells were and the research that had been done. Skloot was persistent to understand Lacks story and eventually interviewed the family. The family got to know Skloot and discovered that she genuinely had good intensions. Skloot wanted to understand the pain and their side of the story, something that no one has asked the family. For these reasons the family may have opened up to Lacks and let her publish the story of Henrietta Lacks.

TILoHeLA 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? 

Blog # 2

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?

              Altruism is the act of duty without regard for the self; to give for the welfare of an individual or an aggregate of individuals, distinguished by the act that subtracts the self from the intended benefit, expecting no reward from the good deed. David Korn suggests that healthcare should follow an altruistic model of giving. If an individual acts in accordance to that model by literally sacrificing oneself for the advancement of scientific understanding of physiological mechanisms, society benefits by being furnished with medical advancements. From those advancements, society may benefit in the same way that one may already benefit from by the sacrifice of another, creating a cycle of acts resulting in an intrinsic good for the whole.

              While there is nothing morally objective to Korn's suggestion, it is naïve. It seems that Korn is not necessarily interested in consent “ to allow their bits and pieces to be used” since the moral obligation he suggests we must all posses does not require it. The reality is that expecting society to be true altruists results in the oppression of the most marginalized groups in society because tese individuals are the least likely to resist. In Rebecca Skloot's “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, Korn's suggestion is exemplified by Henrietta's gift to society, HeLa cells, which were taken from Lacks without her consent. Despite this, it resulted in innumerable benefits to society through scientific advancement, putting into question the need to have consent. Ideally, Henrietta would have given it and all society would stand to gain equally, but Korn's naivete lies in the reality that this is not true. Instead, those most likely to give are the least likely to reap its rewards due to monetary constraints.

              The issue of monetary transaction to access benefit alters the altruistic model for self sacrifice. Korn does not take this into account when stating that one has a “moral obligation to give” oneself “since everybody benefits” because it is partially true. It is not false that everybody benefits, but it is not true that everybody benefits equally. The profit driven model of healthcare directly determines who and who isn't able to profit from the collective input to science. The most marginalized simply cannot afford to buy these benefits even if the intended benefits were acquired with generous intentions. In the book, Dr. Gey confronts this issue when he begins questioning his release of HeLa cells to the greater scientific community when he realizes that he no longer has control of the distribution of the cells. The divide between altruistic intent and egotistical gain lies in the process of distribution of gain. When Dr. Gey worked on developing the HeLa cell lines, he was not necessarily interested in the monetary gain of the discovery, but in order to distribute these cells for further scientific advancement, others took advantage and capitalized on the opportunity and profited.

              It is clear that the issue lies not in the scientific inquiry, but in the distribution of benefit. In the medical office, many people are turned away due to lack of ability to pay. For example, the Lacks family never benefited directly from the advancements stimulated by Henrietta's cells. Many of her descendants were not able to afford care, ironically, even care using advancements made from her cell line. The duality of altruistic intent and profit-driven motivations in distribution create an issue that is difficult to balance. While it is not inherently bad that profit is a driving force of motivation, when it becomes the roadblock for equal distribution, the question about whether the weight of moral decisions lie on the individual or the system becomes of greatest importance. Korn's suggestion places the burden on the individual to simply give without question, and choosing not to would be the immoral road to take. The system, on the other hand is burdened with distributing the benefit to the rest of society, thus shifting the burden to itself. This shift create a dynamic between the individual and the system where the individual and the system must work together if the altruistic intent should have any meaning.

TILoHeLa Blog Post #2

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)

It goes without saying that much of the scientific inquiry within Henrietta Lacks’ story is less than ethical, often even referred to as “immoral” and “deplorable.” This disposition, however, presents a conundrum when considering the purpose of the research conducted; that being to improve medical science in order to make life-saving discoveries. This driving force of altruism therein follows an “ends justifying a means” idea, where the sacrifices made, no matter how immoral or dirty, are seen as acceptable in order to provide a means to which humanity can benefit from. With respect to the HeLa cells, many ethical borders were disregarded for this supposed altruistic approach. First and foremost was the disregard of patient agreement and notification as Dr. Gey secretly took Henrietta’s cancer cells in order to conduct his research, though that was only the tip of the iceberg.

Once the HeLa cells themselves began to circulate amongst many laboratories worldwide, it would then be a matter of time before certain scientists would conduct unethical experiments. Scientists, such as Dr. Southam, would give culture research a rather evil image to the general public, conducting experiments that involved secretly injecting cancerous saline solution into patients with leukemia, and even healthy persons. Though his methods were potentially dangerous and irresponsible, his motive in conducting such experiments was to try and develop a way to make a person immune to cancer (which was not fully understood at the time) or to aid in developing a vaccine for it. Sadly, much was learned with such practices, although much harsher regulation would then be placed in biomedical research.

These profits gained, which can be considered in both a developmental and monetary means, motivate research to be conducted by many scientists, regardless of where they may actually fall within this ethical spectrum. On the plus side of such motivation, albeit there will be those who would abuse their prestigious position in academia, but there will also be the shining examples of ingenuity and respect for patients. The latter would guide research in a manner to which it would not only benefit humanity and understanding, but it would also do it in such a way that would not violate anyone’s human rights. As mentioned before, there still exists the risk that monetary profit or prestigious recognition (and many other possible risks) could drive even renowned researchers to put hedonistic practices above the betterment of humane treatment.

Considering these factors and many others, this essentially leaves the idea of altruism to be near unobtainable within such research in cell culture analysis. In order to receive funding, acknowledgement, and respect within the science community, new discoveries must be presented forward by a researcher, positive results must be gathered, and an insurmountable quantity of criteria must also be fulfilled. So many factors affect personal motivation for conducting research, and in the HeLa cells case, scientists were scrambling to submit new discoveries and bits of gathered information in order to gain recognition. Not only do these concepts contradict the idea of altruism, but so do the actual mistreatments of patients in the supposedly “acceptable” procedures, be it conducting human tests on prisoners or other cancer patients. The philosophy of altruism fails to apply when the process of aiding another sentient being requires the dismay of another, regardless if it were voluntary or justified in some other way.  

Profit Driven Health Care System

     Health care is the act of a licensed professional to restore or maintain the health of an individual. When the topic of a profit driven health care system is brought up then the definition of "health care" is diminished. Profit driven systems have grown and presented themselves as heroes of society but in reality they hide under their villain intentions. Their behavior has provided poor care upon accomplishing their goal to stay ahead of any competition.
     One intended consequence of a profit driven health care system is that the drive to compete for finding a treatment causes the loss of finding a cure. Competition has led to disclosure as well as loss of communication that can enable possible cures at a faster rate. Unfortunately, in the case of Dr. Gey; the founder of HeLa cells, never revealed Henrietta Lacks true identity which could have helped other scientist figure out that HeLa caused a contamination problem. A cure would cause competition to come stop and therefore it is much more beneficial to have individuals pay for ongoing treatments as well as expensive medications. When access to care is reduced individual tend to value it, and are willing to go through rigorous treatments. In the end, only selfish health care companies benefit from unhealthy individuals.
     An unintended consequence, is the violation of moral principles to accomplish a selfish goal. In order to be the first to discover a treatment many scientist will lose focus on their moral values to accomplish what they believe is a greater goal, which is to contribute to the advances in medical research. A well respected researcher named Southam believed that he would make a breakthrough that would lead to cancer vaccines by injecting his patients with cancerous cells. "The deception was for his benefit-he was withholding information because patients might have refused to participate." Although Southams' intention were to help, his actions were immoral and deceitful which may have caused harm to his patients.
     

TILoHeLa Blog #2

Antonio Garcia

August 1st, 2013

TILoHeLa Blog #2

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?

The statement by David Korn is with good intentions but, implausible. Scientific medical research would greatly benefit from easy access to biological samples such as cells and tissues however, not all would be able to reap the rewards of such research given the type of health care system that is used in the United States. These types of issues appear as a common theme in Rebeccas Skloot’s book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. In Skloot’s account of Henrietta Lacks’ life, cell and tissue samples were taken from her without knowing they would be used for scientific research. The cells became famous and known as “HeLa Cells” which were used to develop cures for many diseases such as the polio vaccine and to help understand the structure and behavior of cells. Unfortunately, Lacks and her family were oblivious to what was being done to her cell samples, and felt that they were owed at least recognition for what the cells help discover. 

The consequence of a profit-driven health care system is that not are able to afford the health care and benefit from the medical break throughs done through research. It is understandable that such research is expensive however, the health care system should be fair to all to prevent events like the ones accounted in Skloot’s book. Lacks’ and her family did not have a fair opportunity for education and thus do not have finical security. The book accounts that much of Lack’s family have a low income and cannot afford health care. Many members of Lacks family felt it was unfair that the industry made a high profit off the HeLa cells while the family of the cell donor are suffering from illness and cannot afford health care. 

Among one of the issues of sampling from patients for scientific medical research is the issue of privacy and the right of ownership of biological samples. The samples taken from Lacks was taken without her knowing that they would be used for research. It disturbed Lacks’ family to know that after twenty years, cells that originated from Henrietta Lacks still existed and in great quantities. They were appalled that they were never given a consent form and felt that they deserved the right to know that her cells were being used for research. The book also accounts other events such as a research institutions storing a wide range of biological samples in large quantities. Then when patients found out they demanded that their samples be destroyed. Patients should have the right to know that their biological samples are being stored and possibly used for research because practices considered unethical may not be accepted by the donors. HeLa cells were one of the first cells that under went cell hybridization and cloning, many consider this playing God and unethical, therefore the opinions of the donors should be considered. The book accounts that HeLa cells were injected into patients to test if the cancer is contagious, this is also a controversial procedure and one that was never discussed with Henrietta Lacks. 

Scientific medical research is very beneficial to society given that it can create new technology that will aid human health. Unfortunately, ethics and morals become a concern with some of the procedures involved.  Skloot’s account of Henrietta Lacks suggest that the opinions and civil rights of the donors should be respected given that the research done can impact the lives of the donors as well as their families. Economics should be considered as well given that the scientific industry can make billions of dollars while the donors of the biological samples being mass produced, are left poor and without medical care themselves. 

TILoHeLa 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)

What factors (race, class, gender, “the times”) do you think were responsible for Henrietta’s cells being taken from her without her permission? What problems do you think were to blame for her family being kept in the dark about the many ways in which the study of her cells were contributing to medical science?

          It had been eighty-five years since the Civil War ended for American culture in the 1950's. Society was rife with segregation and inequality as if paying homage to a pre Emancipation Proclamation status quo. Slavery had since been abolished, but not the idea that free black men and women were any more their equals – evident by the treatment of blacks across the country. In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, Rebecca Skloot brings to life this world where black men and women are kept separate from white society by telling the story of Henrietta Lacks, a poor tobacco farmer whose cervical cancer changed the face of science and medicine forever.

          Henrietta's cells being taken by Dr. Wesley TeLinde in the name of science without her consent is analogous to a debate between John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant – normative ethics versus absolute morality. Societal norms stemming from segregation played a role in what constitutes moral responsibilities in medical practice, however it is a more complex issue. Although it is true that segregation and general unequal treatment of the black community was inexcusable, the decision to take the cells without consent is morally ambiguous. The Hippocratic Oath, an oath taken by physicians provides guidelines to follow when treating a patient, namely a that physician such as TeLinde must act in accordance with the maxim that whatever his modus operandi, it must be for the good of the patient. Furthermore, a doctor must direct medical care such that a patient understand that a “doctor knows best”, stemming from the Hippocratic concept that a physician must follow a beneficence model of care so as not to provide too much information to the patient because it is not to their benefit.

          Dr. TeLinde regularly practiced taking cells from patients without consent. From a utilitarian standpoint, the act of taking cells provided an end that justified the means. Studying these cells catalyzed progress in biomedical science for the benefit of all mankind regardless of race, creed, or any factor eligible for discrimination. This, however, ignores injustice at the individual level. A well intentioned act, whether resulting in good or not, fails the test of morality by a deontological standard. By acting on an exploitation such as not being truthful about intention to a poor population, whether good intentioned or not, it is a violation of Kant's categorical imperative by not treating the act as an end and a means at the same time. Concurrent inequality issues allows for moral absolutists to rule that any act as a result of an injustice is ethically immoral.

          From the book, it it not clear to say how societal pressures affected Dr. TeLinde. The exploitation of black patients certainly enabled his ability to take cells without patient consent, but whether he did so on his Hippocratic duties or a disregard for the merit of black humanity is unclear. The effects of Henrietta's cells on science are unquestionably beneficial to all mankind and it is likely that Henrietta would have given consent, “...He Told Henrietta her cells would help save the lives of countless people, and she smiled. She told him she was glad her pain would come to some good for someone” (Skloot, 66). Barring issues about legality and documentation of consent, it would seem that Henrietta approved of a utilitarian viewpoint. She likely found solace in her deathbed knowing that her pain is not for naught, such that any grievances concerning the maltreatment of her condition, if any, are justified by the result of her pain.

          The debate about whether HeLa cells are justified injustices depends on which act is perceived with greater importance. If absolute morality takes precedent over the end result, deontological injustice trumps the congregate good resulting from the discovery of HeLa. The issue with the deontological standpoint, however, is that the greater benefit cannot be disregarded. The lives saved and the intrinsic good generated from the HeLa cells that changed the world must be forgone - not an easy task. Likewise, no justifications can be provided for the inequality Henrietta faced because treatment by society was abhorrent. On the other hand, the ends cannot be whisked away by subscribing to a deontological perspective and not acknowledging benefits we would have never experienced. While her medical treatment is morally ambiguous, other societal norms, even those than enabled ethically ambiguous medical advances are clearly unethical. The issue arises from the medical profession itself following beneficence with patients and a general tendency to take the path of least resistance, which unfortunately was an exploitation of poor uneducated blacks in need of medical attention  

TILoHeLa BLOG #1

What factors (race, class, gender, “the times”) do you think were responsible for Henrietta’s cells being taken from her without her permission? What problems do you think were to blame for her family being kept in the dark about the many ways in which the study of her cells were contributing to medical science?