Henrietta Lacks Paper

Who should profit from the HeLa cells in particular, and medical advances in general? Does the Lacks family have any claim to the money that has been made from HeLa? Laws control the lesser man.

Right conduct controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb I find the question of who should reek the benefits of the HeLa cells in the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks to be not just be a simple he or she answer (if that makes any sense), but I find this question really asks something deeper. The questions I believe this is asking us is if it was legal for dr.George Otto Gey to do what he did and if so was it morally and ethically correct to for him to do so. As for the claim question, two questions really have to be answered, and they are: I. ) Do the Lacks legally have any claim to the money that was profited from the HeLa cells? II.

) Do the Lacks morally (without legal matters being taken into consideration) have a claim to the money that was profited from the HeLa cells? Legally Right or Wrong Now to elaborate on the legal aspects of this question; was it legally acceptable for the HeLa cells to be taken without Henrietta’s permission/knowledge and used for research and profit?From an excerpt from the Columbia Science and Law Technology Review it gives a similar case that was argued in the Supreme Court (circa 1980’s). In the following excerpt it will show the more than likely ruling to a HeLa case (had one taken place). Given the current state of the law, the Henrietta Lackses of the world have a hard argument to make if they believe they deserve a share of the profits. In a similar case in the 1980s, researchers removed the spleen of John Moore as part of his leukemia treatment.Recognizing the unique scientific and financial potential of Moore’s particular cancerous cells, his doctor promptly developed a cell line from the extracted lymphocytes, patented the line, and licensed it for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The doctor also gathered samples of Moore’s blood and other tissue on future visits; he told Moore’s that his continued health depended upon such testing but did not reveal that he was keeping the samples to aid in his research.

The resulting cell line, Mo, now has a market value of around $3 billion.When Moore discovered these lucrative results he sued for his share of the profits. The California Supreme Court, however, rejected his suit, holding that Moore did not have a property interest in the cell line developed by his doctor and that his rights to privacy and dignity were sufficiently protected by the doctrine of informed consent. The court also pointed out that certain laws seem designed to prevent patients from retaining their organs after their removal.

The court did concede, however, that the doctor’s financial motives should have been disclosed to Moore.Commerce is against morality. Morality is going to lose every time. ~Robin Day From the excerpt above it really shows the legal issues that would have worked against the Lacks had they decided to pursue a case against Dr. George Otto Gey.

Another thing that would have also played a role is the time period that this particular incident took place in. Henrietta died October 4th, 1951 at John Hopkins hospital in Baltimore, Maryland; this part of the south was historically known for doing research and procedures on the African American population in that particular area.The fact that they would have essentially been going up against an Anglo-Saxon doctor with a number of credentials to his name (not to mention a doctorates degree in medicine), the ethnic background of both them and Henrietta, and the medical laws that governed that particular time frame, only adds to the hardships both them and their case would have seen if legal proceedings had been sought out. It is no secret that the Lacks family ultimately would not have won that case and even if it was a thought that weighed on their mind, they wouldn’t have been able to afford it due to the fact that the family was of a lower class. You know what is a myth? " Bobette snapped from the recliner. "Everybody always saying Henrietta Lacks donated these cells.

She didn't donate anything. They took them and didn't ask. ” In this book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” the quote above directly shows that the family members (along with Henrietta) had absolutely no say so in the removal of the cervical cells that were taken (more commonly known as HeLa). Moral and Ethical StandingsI always try to see both sides to a story; so with that being said, I believe legally the Lacks had absolutely no claim to the HeLa cells at the time of the removal from Henrietta; however, I do believe if we were going purely off of an ethical and moral standing that the Lacks would have every claim to the cells taken from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa). I personally believe that the Lacks should have gotten a portion of the proceedings that came from the selling of the cells and I believe that if anything, Dr.Gey should have had the ethical and moral decency (the decency period) to let the family know the extensiveness of the issue.

In the book on pp. 89-90 it tells of the day Henrietta died and what the staff at John Hopkins told Day Lacks (Henrietta’s husband) over the phone in relation to her death and procedures that needed to be done. The way Day remembers it, someone from Hopkins called to tell him Henrietta had died, and to ask permission for an autopsy, and Day said no.A few hours later, when Day went to Hopkins with a cousin to see Henrietta’s body and sign some papers, the doctors asked again about the autopsy. They said “They wanted to run tests that might help his children someday.

” Now granted Day Lacks did indeed sign the papers for an autopsy to be conducted, he didn’t sign up for Henrietta’s cells to be marketed and publicized the way they were and he didn’t get the full explanation of what the cells would be used for, so therefore I believe the Lacks have a morally claim to the profit that was made off of HeLa.Conclusion Throughout this novel I have been able to see both sides of this story. I have really enjoyed having to decipher between what is legally right and what is right only because we believe it to be the right thing to do. The questions posed pertaining to this book I believe are supposed to see if what we believe to be right is the same thing as right (in a legal and moral aspect). Overall I think The Immortal Life of Henrietta is an absolutely wonderful book that will give you many things to think about.