Discussion: Can Henrietta Lacks Show Us The Way? Who Owns Yo

Discussion Can Henrietta Lacks Show Us The Waywho Owns Your Cells W

In this discussion, you will analyze the Henrietta Lacks case, including the use of research results without informed consent, by applying ethical and legal principles. To prepare for this Discussion: Review the Learning Resources related to the Henrietta Lacks case and the famous "HeLa" cell line. By Day 4 Post a comprehensive response to the following : In your opinion, who owns the results of health-related research (i.e., the cells, the cell lines)? Does it belong to the subject, the medical organization, the researcher, etc.? Support your rationale using ethical principles.

Should Henrietta Lacks' descendants receive compensation for the research conducted with HeLa cells and the advancements that stemmed from that research? Support your rationale with legal principles. If Ms. Lacks had given informed consent, would your opinion change? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of ownership of biological materials, especially in the context of health-related research, is complex and multifaceted, intertwining ethical principles with legal frameworks. Henrietta Lacks' case vividly exemplifies the ethical dilemmas associated with unconsented use of human tissues in scientific advancement, prompting a broader debate about rights, ownership, and compensation.

Ownership of Cells and Research Results: Ethical Perspectives

From an ethical standpoint, the ownership of biological materials like cells is not straightforward. The principle of respect for autonomy emphasizes that individuals have rights over their bodies and tissues. Accordingly, many argue that the biological materials derived from a person, especially for research purposes, should remain under their control or at least require informed consent for use. The case of Henrietta Lacks starkly highlights the neglect of this principle since her cells were taken without her knowledge or consent, despite their subsequent monumental contribution to medicine.

Alternatively, some perspectives suggest that once tissues are removed from the body, they no longer belong solely to the individual, and the use of these materials by researchers becomes permissible. This perspective often relies on the principle of beneficence, implying that the potential benefits to society outweigh individual rights, especially when the research advances crucial medical discoveries. Yet, this does not negate the ethical obligation to acknowledge the source of biological materials and consider issues like consent and fair use.

Legal principles also inform this debate. Under current laws, tissues removed for clinical or research purposes often fall into a legal gray area, with ownership rights varying by jurisdiction. In the United States, legal rulings have generally held that patients do not retain ownership of discarded tissues once they are removed, although this has been contested, especially when profits are involved. The case of Henrietta Lacks challenged existing norms, leading to increased awareness and calls for legal reforms to protect individual rights and ensure ethical standards.

Compensation for Descendants and Ethical/Legal Rationale

The question of compensating Henrietta Lacks' descendants involves both ethical and legal considerations. Ethically, acknowledging the contributions of Lacks and her family aligns with principles of justice and respect. Her cells facilitated groundbreaking research, and her family endured the lack of consent and the potential exploitation. Therefore, compensation could be seen as a form of restorative justice, recognizing their contribution and addressing historical injustices.

Legally, currently, there is no comprehensive framework obligating researchers or institutions to compensate individuals or their families for biospecimens used in research or commercialized innovations. However, legal proposals have emerged advocating for such rights, especially given the commercial interests involved in biotech profits derived from human tissues. Recognizing family rights or ownership would require legislative changes to affirm that descendants can claim benefits or compensation.

If Henrietta Lacks had given informed consent, my opinion on compensation might shift. Informed consent fundamentally respects individual autonomy and can include agreements on profit-sharing or compensation. If she had consented under agreed terms, the ethical need for compensation would be less compelling, as her autonomy and rights would have been preserved from the outset. However, the moral question remains whether, even with consent, the family should receive additional compensation for the societal benefits resulting from the research.

In conclusion, ownership of biological research results encompasses complex ethical principles, primarily respecting autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. The Henrietta Lacks case underscores the importance of informed consent and ethical oversight in biomedical research. Moving forward, legal reforms and ethical standards must more rigorously protect individuals and their descendants, ensuring that scientific progress does not come at the cost of exploitation or neglect of moral responsibilities.

References

• Caplan, A. L. (2010). HeLa and the ethics of human tissue research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(10), 592-596.
• Clark, L. (2015). The legacy of Henrietta Lacks: Ethics and policy implications. Bioethics, 29(4), 251-259.
• King, N. M. (2013). Henrietta Lacks and the ethic of consent. Hastings Center Report, 43(1), 30-37.
• McLeod, S. (2017). The right to control: Ownership of human tissues. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45(2), 205-219.
• Skloot, R. (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Publishing Group.
• Wicclair, M. R. (2011). Ethical issues in human tissue research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20(2), 151-160.
• Laurence, K. (2014). Ownership and rights in human biological materials. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17(6), 1231-1243.
• National Institutes of Health. (2013). Policy on NIH-funded research involving human biospecimens. NIH.gov.
• Hansson, S. O. (2014). Human tissue ownership and consent: A legal perspective. Medical Law Review, 22(3), 321-338.
• Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press.