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

were able to grow apart from the body; however, Lacks did not know her cells were special and did not give consent for her cells to be taken. Although Lacks cells were vital to medical advancement it was not correct for the doctors to take her cells without her knowing. Furthermore, even if our bodies can be used to help major medical advancements people should not be forced to give up their bodies.
Argument 1
First of all Henrietta Lacks was denied the choice to make an autonomous decision.

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

self-determining.
Objection 1
Paternalism is a principle that is frequently used to justify the restriction of one's autonomy. Some may believe that paternalism is necessary in order to generate the best outcome possible. Specifically, the welfare principle says “it is justifiable to restrict individual autonomy if doing so will provide benefits to others” (pg. 946). In the case of Henrietta Lacks the welfare principle could be used to justify the removal of her cells. Without Henrietta Lacks’s cells, HeLa cells, a variety of major medical advancements would not have been possible. For example, due to HeLa cells, the Polio vaccine was invented. Therefore, by removing the HeLa cells others benefited through the use of new medicine.
Reply 1
If a person is able to make justifiable decisions for him or herself regarding what actions are taken towards his or her body, then there is no need for the use of paternalism. People should be given the option to choose their actions even if their bodies have a special ability. In the end, patients should be given the option to decide what happens to his or her body. “To treat someone as if she lacks autonomy is this to treat her as less than a person” (pg. 40).
Argument 2
Autonomy is closely related to informed consent. Furthermore, “The underlying idea of informed consent in both research and treatment is that people have a right to control what is done to their bodies. The notion of informed consent is thus a recognition of an individual's autonomy” (pg. 144). The informed part of informed consent is that the patients are knowledgeable about his or her treatment and is able to understand the procedure, outcome, and possible side effects. The consent part of informed consent is when a patient willingly agrees to have the procedure. Informed consent must not be coerced, “the person must of his or her ‘own free will’ agree to become a research subject” (pg. 148). Henrietta Lacks was not given the informed consent required to decide whether or not she was willing to give her cells. Her cells were taken without her knowledge going against her right to informed consent. In the end, any person who seeks medical treatment should be given informed consent that leads him or her to make an autonomous decision.
Objection 2
Some may believe that it is more beneficial to find an outcome that creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run.

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

3
According to Kant an individual capable of giving consent is one who is rational and autonomous. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant believes “the consequences of an action are morally irrelevant” (pg. 911). Instead, Kant relies on a different principle that he calls the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative states “act only on that maxim which you can will to be a universal law” (pg. 911). A maxim can be personal or subjective, but can also be thought of as candidates for moral rules. For Henrietta Lacks the maxim could be not to take from a person without his or her consent first. Proving that it is not right to take from others as a universal law. Kant’s Ethics can also be seen in a medical contest through four distinct features. One, it is always wrong to lie. Two, we must always treat people as ends never as means. Three, an action is correct when the categorical imperative is satisfied. Lastly, perfect duties are bases for claims that certain rights should be recognized (pg. 913). For Henrietta Lacks she was lied to, she was treated as a mean of an experiment, the experiment did not satisfy the categorical imperative, and her rights were not recognized. Patients should not be forced to give their body to science because it would be going against Kant Ethics and the categorical imperative. Overall, it is wrong to take from a person because would not want others to take from you.
People should not be forced to give a part of their bodies, even if they have the capability to save others. Each patient should be given informed consent that allows him or her to make an autonomous choice. For the case of Henrietta Lacks she was not given the choice of whether or not to give her cells. Although Lacks’s cells have been a key role in a majority of medical advancements the way in which they were obtained was wrong.