Respond To The

Respond To The

APA format Cite one peer reviewed reference words Respond to the following: Christie Artuso When we do consider all of the 'good' that has been accomplished through these cells (HeLa cells) - it might be prudent to ask - if she DID have the right to consent (at that time) - and she said 'no' - what would the outcome have been? Would we have done to 'discover' these opportunities - if anything? Henrietta Lacks was not directly harmed by the use of her cells - and at that time - treatment was very limited (and it seems that her cancer had advanced significantly as well. Does it make sense to consider 'missed opportunities' that might be tied to consent? Thoughts class?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding Henrietta Lacks' case, particularly regarding informed consent, continue to evoke significant debate in biomedical ethics. The case of HeLa cells, derived from her cervical cancer without her knowledge or consent in the 1950s, underscores complex issues related to autonomy, beneficence, and justice within research practices. When evaluating whether Henrietta Lacks should have been afforded the right to consent, it is essential to contextualize the historical circumstances, ethical standards of the time, and ongoing implications for future research.

Historically, the 1950s epidemiological and medical research were conducted within a framework that often marginalized patient autonomy, especially for marginalized populations. At that time, obtaining informed consent was not the standard practice it is today. Henrietta Lacks’ case exemplifies this systemic oversight, where her cells were taken and used extensively without her knowledge or permission (Skloot, 2010). If she had refused consent, it raises an ethical dilemma: would the scientific and medical community have been able to achieve these groundbreaking discoveries without utilizing her cells? The answer is complex, as the scientific environment was considerably different then, with less emphasis on patient rights and more on the pursuit of knowledge (Cohen & Mastroianni, 2011).

From an ethical standpoint, respecting a patient's autonomy is foundational. The principle of informed consent acknowledges an individual's right to make decisions about their body and biological materials. In the case of Henrietta Lacks, the lack of consent could be viewed as a missed opportunity to uphold ethical standards that prioritize patient rights. Conversely, acknowledging that her cells contributed to significant advancements in medicine, such as the development of the polio vaccine and cancer research, raises questions about whether the potential benefits justify the ethical lapses concerning consent (Wicclair, 2012).

Despite the lack of direct harm to Lacks herself, there are implications for issues of justice and fairness. Using her cells without permission primarily affected her family, who were not informed or compensated. Today, ethical standards emphasize transparency and respect for persons, recognizing that the exploitation of vulnerable populations or marginalized communities for groundbreaking research can perpetuate injustices (Kant, 2018). It is essential to acknowledge that missed opportunities for consent not only reflect ethical failures but also impact public trust in scientific research.

Furthermore, considering missed opportunities tied to consent invites reflection on the importance of ethical reforms that respect individual rights while advancing scientific knowledge. The Henrietta Lacks case has prompted significant changes, including stricter regulations on human tissue research, the establishment of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and policies emphasizing informed consent (National Institutes of Health, 2013). These reforms aim to balance scientific progress with respect for individual autonomy and prevent similar ethical oversights in the future.

In conclusion, the debate on whether Henrietta Lacks had the right to consent involves balancing scientific benefits against individual rights. While her cells contributed enormously to medical advances, neglecting her autonomy and rights constitutes an ethical failure. Moving forward, the case underscores the importance of integrating ethical principles in biomedical research, ensuring that scientific progress does not come at the cost of individual dignity and rights. Ethical consent processes are not only fundamental to respecting personal autonomy but are essential for fostering trust and justice in scientific endeavors.

References

• Cohen, I. G., & Mastroianni, A. C. (2011). The ethics of health research. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (2018). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
• National Institutes of Health. (2013). The Henrietta Lacks case and subsequent policy change. NIH Records.
• Skloot, R. (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Publishing Group.
• Wicclair, M. R. (2012). Ethical issues in clinical research. In Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (Eds.), Ethics and research (pp. 97-114). Johns Hopkins University Press.