Apa Format Cite At Least 1 Peer Reviewed Reference
Apa Formatcite At Least 1 Peer Reviewed Reference175 265 Wordsrespon
Respond to the following: Christie Artuso These are great points Claudia. It is very difficult to draw a clear line between compensation and the 'right' to discovery. Although there is no 'clear' answer and many of our perspectives are based on personal beliefs - I always return to the 'what if.....' - what if Henrietta Lacks refused and her cells were never studied.........would we ever have discovered all that we did? It is food for thought. What are your thoughts?
Paper For Above instruction
The ethical considerations surrounding the use of human biological materials in scientific research, such as the case of Henrietta Lacks, evoke complex debates about the balance between individual rights and societal benefits. The case of Henrietta Lacks is emblematic of these issues. Her cancer cells were taken without her consent in 1951, yet they contributed significantly to medical research, including the development of vaccines and cancer treatments (Skloot, 2010). This situation highlights the difficult boundary between respecting personal autonomy and advancing scientific discovery that benefits humanity at large.
The core of this debate hinges on whether individuals should have absolute rights over their biological materials, or whether society has a justified interest in utilizing such materials for the greater good. Ethical frameworks such as deontological ethics emphasize respecting autonomy and informed consent, whereas utilitarian perspectives prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). In the case of Henrietta Lacks, her family's lack of consent raised significant moral questions. Yet, her contribution led to breakthroughs that have saved countless lives, emphasizing the societal benefits of such research.
As Artuso mentioned, the question of what might have happened if Henrietta Lacks' cells were never studied introduces another layer of ethical contemplation. If individuals could refuse consent and thereby potentially impede research progress, disease treatments might remain unrealized, prolonging suffering and mortality. However, the importance of respecting patient rights and autonomy cannot be understated. It is vital to establish ethical guidelines that safeguard individual interests while enabling scientific research. Institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent protocols serve as mechanisms to uphold these ethical principles (Resnik, 2018).
Furthermore, advancements in technology provide new possibilities for ethical research. Biobanks, for example, often acquire broad consent from donors, allowing future unspecified research while respecting autonomy (Kaye et al., 2015). Such models showcase how balancing ethical considerations with scientific progress can be achieved. Ultimately, the key lies in fostering transparent, respectful dialogues among researchers, ethicists, and the public to navigate these moral complexities.
In conclusion, the case of Henrietta Lacks continues to serve as a poignant reminder of the importance of ethical integrity in biomedical research. While the pursuit of discovery is essential, it must not override the rights of individuals. Striking this balance requires continuous ethical reflection and implementing policies that honor both individual autonomy and societal benefits, ensuring that scientific advances proceed responsibly.
References
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., Morrison, M., Teare, H., & Melham, K. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient-centric model for permissions and research participation. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(2), 141–146.
- Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with human biological materials. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 256–263.
- Skloot, R. (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Publishing Group.