Henrietta Lacks Should Not Be Forced To Give Away Their Bodies

People Should not be Forced to Give Away Their Bodies

Question: Some of you may have read the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. Lack’s cells were taken without her permission and used of research. Although most acknowledge that her cells should not have been used without her permission, Lack’s cells were unique because they were especially able to grow apart from her body. If our body parts can help with major medical advancements should we be forced to give them? Henrietta Lacks, specifically her cells, have played a major role in a variety of medical breakthroughs. Unfortunately, for a period of time, Lacks did not know her cells were being used for major medical breakthroughs. Lacks’s cells were unique in a way that they

Autonomy is the idea that “rational individuals should be permitted to be self-determining” (pg. 941). In other words, Henrietta Lacks, a rational individual, was not allowed to make a self-determining decision as to if the cells should be removed or not. People act autonomously when their actions are the result of their own choices and decisions. Patients should be able to make autonomous decisions regarding their actions, options, and outcomes. Another example of autonomy being violated is the Tuskegee Syphilis study. In the study “participants were led to believe they were receiving appropriate medical treatment when in fact such treatment was being actively withheld to study the effects of their disease” (pg. 943). In both Lack’s situation and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, African-American participants were used and all participants were denied the opportunity to decide what happens to his or her body. However, autonomy is more than the freedom of making a decision, “there must be genuine options to choose among” (pg. 943). Overall, if a person does contain a vital part of major medical advancements such as Henrietta Lacks's cells, he or she should not be coerced into giving away his or her body. Since humans are rational individuals they should also be

Some utilitarians might believe that it is beneficial to force people into giving their bodies as long as it benefits a majority of people in the long run. For example, some may believe that it was reasonable to take Lacks’s cells since they were vital to many medical breakthroughs. Furthermore, utilitarianism does not seem to require informed consent. In detail, “If more social food is to be gained by making people research subjects without securing their agreement, then this may be morally legitimate on some utilitarian accounts” (pg. 169). Overall some utilitarians may believe that as long as the outcome is beneficial to a majority of people then informed consent is not necessary.

Reply 2

However, the inhospital hospital shows that a utilitarian-based decision would not be beneficial in the long run. For example, if Joe is perfectly healthy besides a small stomach ache then a utilitarian doctor may find it beneficial to remove Joe’s body parts, killing him, in order to help the other patients who are seen as more valuable than Joe. If it is found that doctors continue to partake in this behavior it could lead to mistrust between the medical professionals and patients. People would fear their outcome may be similar to Joe's; therefore, more people will be hurt in the long run rather than helped.

Argument