TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

Pantients should be able to give consent for the doctor to use their cells, or any other part of thier body. But still, some part of me wants the doctor to have the underlying right/courage to take the cells even without permission in order to help the rest of the human population, even if its morally unethical

It was not right, and there is no way around that fact. However, the leaps of progress that have been made since cause that disgression to have been forgotten until now, because the importance of the research outwieghed the delimma, and that was the right thing to do. It all depends on the priorities at the time. It was not right, as I said, but would anyone wish that the doctor had been more ethical and hadn’t done it? No.

Well wheather or not it was beneficial is not the question, its just for the sake of being ethical. I think the doctor should have asked before talking it.

I’m sure the family would not have denied.

As morbid and creepy as this sounds, I have the perfect song lyrics to accompany this story.
“Got a secret
Can you keep it?
Swear this one you’ll save
Better lock it, in your pocket
Taking this one to the grave

Yes two can keep a secret
If one of them is dead…”

On a lighter note, I do believe that as long as the doctor is working for the greater good, they should obtain whatever resources they need. True, the researcher should try their hardest to get the family’s consent, yet this isn’t always possible. As much as all the clinical people will hate me, I’d say go against HIPPA and get the sample. The new strain of whatever is just going to end up rotting underground unless you find a cure anyway, so you might as well take advantage of having resources to find a possible cure right in front of you. I also agree that the family shouldn’t be paid in reward for their family member having a terrible, life-ending disease.

Doctors should be prevented from taking working, useful cells for their own research. I do, also believe that the patient or their family if it is post mortem should be entitled to some money for their donation. However, if it’s cancer and it would be removed anyway, go ahead. I think that patients must be informed though if some of their cells, harmful or benign, are kept after a surgery. If the cells obtained from Henrietta Lacks were obtained from a surgery that would be performed anyway, then I don’t believe consent is really necessary. However, her family should have been compensated financially.

It is absolutely ridiculous to me to base whether or not someone can share patient information based on patient skin color. It may have been back in the 50’s but segregation is just wrong.

The fact that they took her cells is bad enough. I think that if they used it for good and if they hadn’t released her name that it would have been fine. As long as there is no way to identify someone as the donor then they should be fine.

I still think that the greater good should sometimes override the will of like, ten people. If it’s to save people’s lives then it’s okay, as long as there is no incriminating evidence.

i dont think back in the day asking for patience consent was a big deal
but i really believe that Lacks family should be rewarded with some money. i sure thast the manufactures are making a lots of money with the medicine.
now the doctors should hav a written consent bedore they take the cells from patients body thats an ethical issue

I do think that it’s a good idea to have the patients’ consent, but I also don’t think that they should be making such a big deal about this. There are bigger problems in the world to take care of. I agree with destiny about the “thick pay-off”. Also, I think the government needs to loosen a little when it comes to laws regarding medicine, because many times it stops the doctor from doing what really should be done.

Yes…it was technically “not right” for them to take the cells without her consent. But seriously, who cares? That might sound rude and abundant in lack of empathy, but her cells are helping the world. They might save lives. The family needs to undergo the news-flash that lacks is dead and the removal of her cells did not harm her in any way. Honestly, it just sounds like an attempt by greedy family members to recieve a thick pay-off.

I came across a related consent caveat when I took a lifeguard certification course last year. As a civilian (as opposed to military) professional rescuer (be it lifeguard, emt, or ghostbuster , you have to obtain consent if at all possible or assume it before you render aid in order to, ahem, C.Y.A., in today’s circus of lawsuits. Though medical treatment and medical research are somewhat different in scope, the point I think is that we seem to have moved on the issue of ethics in science away from the “common good” (whichever definition you choose), and towards the “individual good” (looking out for yourself first). Shall we call it social evolution or backtracking?

Would an unscrupulous doctor really be seizing some tasty cells for the common good? That seems a bit of an oxymoron. I suppose it depends on what your view of the common good is. If you say that the common good is the possible eradication of horrible diseases, then well and good (no pun intended). But what if you say the common good is maintaining the value of human integrity as a race?

Since arguments have already been posed for both sides of the consent question, I’ll ask two more: Why do questions of ethics pervade research across all the sciences today when they were once an afterthought? Is it because some wish to invalidate/slow the progress of science (i.e. any of the religious debates: evolution, cloning), or is it because we like to prove ourselves as a generally moral species and respecters of the rights of an individual?

The view point of the present society would consider the way the doctors used the patient’s cells without her consent as morally wrong, and unjust; but the patient’s past society viewpoint did not even consider what the patient might have wanted and that was accepted by that past society as a whole. Yes, down to the point the doctors did “steal” her cells from her, but look at all the medical progress that was created, researched, and discovered; and more importantly remember that at the time period ideas like “safety,” “sanitation,” and “caution” where not emphasized as much as they are today; although, in this case, the patient’s skin color may have played a role in what the doctors thought. I don’t feel that the family should benefit financially, only because a trend would start where researchers would have to pay anyone who agreed to allow their cells to be researched even if the cells proved to be unworthy, plus I would rather be known for donating part of me to help millions rather than greedily taking money that should go towards research rather than in my pocket.

Dr. Gey’s decision to remove the cancer cells without asking for consent of Henrietta Lacks, and the family at the least should have been asked if they are comfortable with the removal of Henrietta Lacks’s cells for study purposes. And the family does deserve some kind of financial reward, not only did Henrietta save lives of millions of people she also helped big time medical cooperations make millions of dollars.

I think that scientists should be able to hold onto their data, however, they also should tell the family. I don’t think consent should be necessary, because some families would simply disagree unless paid, to make a profit. I think that this selfish reasoning should be allowed. I also think that the identity should be anonymous, and by that i mean forever. I don’t think that 50 years down the road, like in this situation, the patient’s name should be publicized.

It was inconsiderate of the doctor to remove her cells without consent and not really informing her relatives but she had already passed she didn’t need those cancerous cells. Would the family acquire monetary gain had they known it was potentially useful in other research?

It is alright that Dr. Gey removed cells from Henrietta Lacks without permision because it had to be done. In the end the only way to figure out and understand that cancer is to experiment with a sample of it. In addition, the doctor has a different understanding and perspective of benefits from the sample. He wanted to study it so that it could benefit the all the public with a cure. Mr. Lacks does not neccessarly have to be notified either. Mr. Lacks should not care much as long as it could provide Mrs. Lacks with a cure. However, the the Lacks family should somewhat benefit financially. They do not deserve a huge amount of money because they didn’t do any of the work.

Whether or not consent should have to be obtained is a difficult issue. Many would agree that consent to use anything should be necessary, but as mentioned, circumstances might present a different view point. Before reading this, I would have agreed that consent of the patient should absolutely be a rule. However, what if a stubborn or private person came in with a previously unseen bacteria, virus, etc..and would not allow a physician to harvest cells? This could prevent use medical research from taking place and could inadvertently hinder a medical breakthrough.

On the topic of giving a family some of the profits from the findings, I am more strongly opinionated. I dont believe that anyone should personally or financially benefit from a situation like this. Money would be better spent in medical research specific to the findings.

It isn’t right for anyone, even a Doctor for that matter, to take something away which is not rightfully his. Taking a part of someone’s body is just the same as stealing. I’m sure if he were to ask Mrs. Lack’s for her permission she would have given him all the cell’s he needed, after all, who wouldn’t want to possibly save someone else’s life? If the patient is against saving someone’s life, well that’s on their conscious and not the scientists/researchers.

I agree with what Ty said…It was for the better value of all other human beings. I mean if she had not given consent then there are many things that would not be known to us today. By taking her cells without her approvel she unknowingly helped millions of other people. But I really do not think that it was moraly the right thing to do. Doctors have the right to an opinion on how to treat their patients, but patients have the right to refuse. She was not given that option, perhaps it was because of her skin color and the doctor felt superior to her and thought that he didn’t need her consent, but what we do with our bodies is up to us, not a doctor. It was unethical, yet a great leap on the scientific side of things.

i do not think it was right for Henrietta Lacks’s doctor to remove cells to benifit his study of cervical cancer because he probably would have gotten her approval. But he should have asked because she may not have wanted him to. i also think the Lacks family should get money afterall the celll HeLa was named after their mother. Doctor George Gey sounds like a selfish man for not asking for Henrietta’s permission and not giving the family a share of his findings.

I agree that Henrietta Lack’s family should have gained some monetary compensation. Another question though is when this takes place today, is the patient obligated to receive monetary compensation? Or should that depend on whether the cells helped develop new medical advancements?

Was is it wrong for Dr. Gey to remove those cells? Well, yes. But it was a lesser evil preformed for a greater good. Mr. Lacks and his children should have been notified before her death of the intended removal of her cancer cells. And they should probably receive some sort of monetary compensation for her contribution. What was done was wrong however it seems that the ends justifies the means.

What stops a physician from taking cells from a patient without consent is HIPAA. Under HIPAA a physician or any other medical care person agrees to do what is best for patient and a person can be fined up to 50k. If that doesn’t stop the physician from taking someone’s cells without their permission then hopefully their integrity would or at least the thought of losing their integrity and having to face the consequences in medical after that. Most people, if you sit down and talk to them respectfully, would not mind giving some of their cells to medical research in the hopes of saving more lives.