Henrietta Lacks
Henrietta Lacks
In 1951, Henrietta Lack was diagnosed with cervical cancer at John Hopkins Hospital. In the course of treatment, doctor obtained cell sample from her tumor without her approval. Later, medical scientist discovered that the cells had immortal properties leading to massive development in the medical field. A number of scholars argue that doctors mistreated Henrietta by obtaining cells from her body without her approval. These scholars believe that Henrietta’s doctor’s actions violated the principle of informed consent. In this speech, the view that Henrietta was mistreated is disapproved by several arguments. These disapproving arguments suggest that; Henrietta was treated in line with the standards of her time, the doctor was acting in Henrietta’s best interest while obtaining the cells, and that, Henrietta was not in a position to give informed consent at the time the HeLa cells generated research interest.
Background of the Case
Henrietta Lacks is the woman behind the HeLa cells, immortal human cell line that are commonly used in medical research (Skloot, 2010). The name HeLa was obtained from the first two letters of both of Henrietta Lacks’ name. Henrietta was diagnosed with cervical cancer in the early 1950s and was enrolled for treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital. During the treatment process, doctors removed tissues from her body for research purpose without informing her. The cells were used in tissue culture leading to the discovery of the first ever immortal human cell lines. These cells have made significant contributions to field of medicine include; development of vaccines, drugs, cloning technologies, gene mapping, cancer treatment and many other development (Skloot, 2010). Henrietta died without knowing that tissues were obtained from her body and that scientists were using them in biomedical research.
Ethical/ legal Issue: Informed Consent
Informed consent is one of the ethical/ legal issues that are clearly brought out in this case. Informed consent is a legal, as well as, an ethical principle that demands that physicians should seek prior approval from the patient before administering any medical procedure (American Medical Association, 2012). Informed consent is also an essential ethical principle in research activities that involve human subject. The principle of informed consent seeks to protect individual autonomy. It recognizes that, under normal circumstances, adults are capable of acting rationally and should be allowed to make their own decision (Bennett, 2000). In research, the principle of informed consent seeks to protect the well being of the patients. This principle ensures that research subjects are informed about the purposes, benefits and risks involved in participating in particular research.
The principle of Informed consent applies in Henrietta case because Henrietta cells were taken for medical research. Some ethical scholars may argue that an essential medical principle in research was violated because the cell samples were obtained from Henrietta without her approval. The procedure was conducted within Henrietta’s approval. The fact that the doctor did not inform Henrietta about the procedures means that Henrietta did not become aware of her participation in research. This is means that her right to control the use of cells from her body was violated. Scholars may also argue that failing to get approval from Henrietta exposed her to various risk. The principle of informed consent requires practitioners to inform subjects about the risks involved in participating in certain study (Bennett, 2000). The doctors did not inform Henrietta’s about her participation and, therefore, remained oblivious of the risks and benefits involved in her participation, in the research activity. These arguments may lead to the conclusion that Henrietta was mistreated.
Why Henrietta was not mistreated
Henrietta was not mistreated because she was treated according to the standards of her time. The principle of informed consent is relatively new principle in the field of biomedicine and research. The concept of informed consent was conceived in the late 1950s (American Medical Association, 2012). During this time, the legal system applied the battery theory to this concept. The battery theory meant that administering a medical procedure on an individual without prior approval amounts to battery. In later years, the battery theory was abandoned in favor of the negligence theory. However, the conception of these concepts came years later after doctors obtained Henrietta’s cell. The principle of informed consent was officially codified in 1974 (Bennett, 2000). The procedure that led to the extraction of the HeLa cells took place in 1951, before the informed consent principle emerged in the late 1950s. Thus, the doctors who obtained the cells from Henrietta could not have been aware of the principle of informed consent. The doctor acted in line with the laws and principles that were present at that time, and informed consent was not one of them.
Henrietta was not mistreated because at the doctor was acting in her best interest at the time he was obtaining the cell samples. Henrietta had walked into the hospital with tumor in her cervix. The doctor decided to obtain to take a cell sample from Henrietta tumor for testing so as to identify the most appropriate mode of treatment (Skloot, 2010). At that time, the doctor was not aware that the cells would generate significant interest in the biomedical research field. The discovery about the immortal nature of HeLa cell was made later after the test had begun. Thus, it is safe to argue that, at the time the doctor was obtaining the cell, the priority was to help Henrietta get the best treatment rather than making profitable gains through research. The principle of informed consent is essential in the medical field. However, this principle must be balanced with other principles such as beneficence. The principle of beneficence requires medical practitioners to pursue actions that will benefit the patient (Bennett, 2000). The doctor obtained the cell for testing in order to enable him to offer better care to Henrietta and thus, acted in line with the beneficence principle.
Henrietta was not in a position to provide informed consent for the use of HeLa cells in research and, therefore, the doctor did not violate her autonomy. As already mentioned, the doctor initial purpose for obtaining Henrietta’s cell was to enable the diagnosis of the patient’s problem. It is not necessary to obtain consent for storing personal samples that have been obtained for diagnostic purposes. HeLa cells only generate research interest much later after the samples were obtained. The development made from HeLa cells also gained economic significance later after the tissues. At this time, Henrietta has already passed on due to the complication of her illness. According to Skloot (2010), Henrietta died barely 10 months after she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Henrietta reported her condition for the first time in January 1951 and died in October 1951. By the time of her death, HeLa cells had not generated a lot of research interest. It became impossible for scientists to obtained informed consent for use of Henrietta cells after Henrietta’s death.
Conclusion
The story of Henrietta and her immortal cells has generated a contentious moral debate in the field of biomedical science. Some scholars argue that, though Henrietta’s cells have led to significant development in the field of science failing to get Henrietta’s approval amounted to mistreatment. According to these scholars, failing to obtain informed consent before involving a subject in research is a violation of the patient’s autonomy. Failing to obtain consent also exposes the subject to harm. However, this speech disapproves the argument that the doctor’s action violated Henrietta’s rights. At this time, the concept of informed consent had not emerged and, therefore, the doctor acted in line with the standards of the time. Also, the doctor obtained the cells for diagnostic purpose and, therefore, was acting in Henrietta’s best interest. In addition, Henrietta had died by the time the HeLa cells began to generate research interest and, therefore, Henrietta was not in a position to grant consent.
References
American Medical Association (2012). Informed Consent. November 9, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/patient-physician-relationship-topics/informed-consent.page
Bennett M. (2000). A History of Informed Consent. November 9, 2012. http://www.ventanacenter.com/articlesbackground_007.htm
Skloot R. (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. USA. Crown Publishers
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
