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.