In her article, Rebecca Skloot is concerned about the medical community exploiting people. In ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,’ Rebecca Skloot explores non-consensual exploitation. The book braids together the scientific community in a story about race, power, and poverty. Before her death, doctors cut out cancer cell samples from Henrietta, which are later used for indefinite multiplication in the lab environment (Skloot 16).
The cells drawn from Henrietta allowed scientists to make significant advances in modern medicine. However, Henrietta did not consent to the removal of the cancerous cells from her body. The cell line from Henrietta, which scientists call HeLa, lived outside the body as they did inside her, allowing researchers to study human cells. Even more inhumane, is that the scientific community only informed Henrietta’s family about HeLa cells twenty-five years later. According to the family, they felt exploited by the press and science. At the time, it was not legal to take tissues from patients to use for research despite the legal cases surrounding the cases. The current case study explores the scientific community’s use of prestige and power to exploit people while neglecting concerns of ethics in research.
In expressing the power of education, Sloot talks about race, poverty, and the powerlessness resulting from the absence of education. Skloot (27) discusses scientific ambition in a twist that saw Henrietta’s cells used to treat basic flu and ghastly cancers. The jackpot of cells, which were packaged and shipped globally, acted as a lab workhorse. Skloot’s book shows the family’s enragement about the exploitation and their powerlessness after the court’s ruling.
However, the privilege of the research company deserves a third eye as they trampled on the family in a way that did not mirror ethical principles (Skloot 27). When Henrietta’s case was taken to court, a ruling was passed to favor medical research. The court argued that medical research was more important as compared to attachment feelings. The courts should have handled Henrietta’s case differently by considering values such as autonomy and personal freedom. This should have taken precedence over scientific advancements (Skloot 16). Even today, the ethical issue surrounding the taking of samples for research is a concern.
The ethics in tissue research spills over to issues of culture and class. Henrietta visited a Baltimore Hospital for women of color to receive treatment because of the segregation laws that existed at the time (Skloot 27). Doctor Richard Wesley withdrew a sample of tissues from without the consent of Henrietta before taking them to Doctor Gey. Doctor Gey accepted the samples and proceeded to handle the tissues without notifying the patient. “Gey still got excited at moments like this, but everyone else in his lab saw Henrietta’s sample as something tedious—the latest of what felt like countless samples that scientists and lab technicians had been trying and failing to grow for years” (Skloot p. 33).
The debate centered on research practices that viewed humans as research. It is evident that scientists considered themselves privileged and of a higher class than patients such as Henrietta. The relationship between the Doctor Wesley, Doctor Gey, and the patient was imbalanced as power and privilege took precedence (Skloot 27). The imbalance still exists in today’s environment, just as its deep historical roots go. The issues of power and privilege bring up ethics and culture in today’s environment.
Although Henrietta’s family is proud of the contribution that HeLa cells are making to the society, her daughter wants to learn how to use the cells, while protecting their privacy. This is the only possible way of consenting to the use of the cells. Henrietta’s daughter insists that the researchers have to acknowledge that the cells are not anonymous if they are to treat them accordingly. Skloot’s book analyzes social power and authority in ways that define the objectives of moral inquiry. In a show of negative power and privilege, the scientific community only called Henrietta’s family after her death, if there was an issue to do with the HeLa cells.
John Hopkins Hospital did not sell the cells but made enormous profits from the cells. The journalists and researchers proceeded to publish information that violated the family’s privacy. This included the medical records as well as the genetic information of the family. Henrietta’s daughter Deborah states that she cannot get mad at the scientists because of its value in giving life (Skloot 27). However, she acknowledges herself as a walking drug store only hoping to get a portion of the health insurance to avoid paying for drugs that her mother’s cells probably helped make.
Arguments on whether taking a tissue sample for use in research without consent is legal still abound. The book criticizes the ignorance of science, which dissociates cells as part of the person. Scientists argue that it is what makes it easy for researchers to do science. Yet, the lack of consent damages public trust in science, something the scientific community care little about. The exploitation of Henrietta’s family was an ordeal that the company did not have to endure.
The family of Henrietta did not have to contemplate the systemic exploitation by the scientific community. Studies show that people feel attached to body parts, even if they are small issues. The company is transparent and accountable, given its relation to racial and class privileges. Henrietta’s case is classical exploitation resulting from power and influence that patients face in their everyday lives, especially regarding consent to research.
Works Cited
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, New York, US: Crown/Archetype, 2010. Print.