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