Henrietta Lacks Violations

Henrietta Lacks

The end justifies the means. This proverb has been used countless times to elucidate morally bankrupt decisions that achieve positively correct outcomes. In health care, this could not be truer with the Henrietta Lacks case. Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman who died from cervical cancer in 1951 at the age of 31. Unbeknownst to her, two specimens from her cervix were obtained by her doctors at John Hopkins Hospital. At some point, her cells caught the attention of researchers due to their unique survivability. Her cells were later used in countless experiments and transformed the medical world. These cells were instrumental in the development of the polio vaccine. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical violations that may have occurred against Henrietta Lacks and if the end, in this case, justifies the means (Biography.com editors, 2017).

In the mid-1900s, laws regarding medical informed consent were nonexistent. This allowed for Henrietta’s cells to be taken and used without consequence. Mrs. Lacks nor her family had knowledge of the usage of her cells. Even after

informed consent became law there were no efforts made to obtain a consent. Once medical informed consent was enacted the illegal usage of her cells continued. The Lacks family had no acknowledgment in scientific papers and no financial compensation. Without consequence, the medical community benefited from her stolen cells.
Ethically speaking, the argument for Mrs.

Lacks case could be based on utilitarianism or consequentialism ideologies. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of the greater good of the majority people. The fact that a vaccine for polio came from the usage of her cells is evidence of this. However, one cannot deny the disservice done to the Lacks family. The medical research community is hiding behind the ethical arguments like utilitarianism whilst violating its primary consequence that stealing is wrong. Stealing is defined as the illegal act of taking a person’s property without that person given consent at will (Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, 1982). Mrs. Lacks clearly did not give her consent nor did her family. Once established, informed consent still was not attempted. This is for all attempts and purposes theft (Butts & Rich,

2016).
In conclusion, some may argue the good that came from the usage of Mrs. Lack’s cells far outweigh the damage that occurred. The medical research community has used ethical theories such as utilitarianism to explain away violations towards the Lacks family. By denying informed consent once establish, the Lacks rights were violated. John Hopkins Hospital has claimed no financial gain from the usage, thereby, repudiating any claims of responsibility. Its failure to attempt informed consent, compensate financially, or recognize the Lacks in medical research papers is a violation of the basic concept of utilitarianism which is not to steal. Failure to make right these violations can lead to further distrust of the African American community towards the medical field. True, great things came from the use of her cells. The end, however, does not merit the disservice and distrust that arose with it.