Uninformed Consent

When someone hears about a significant breakthrough in the medical field, the first thing that comes to their mind is who were the scientist that achieved this finding and how? Never do they stop and think about those who participated and were impacted because of this cure that is now cured, specifically those who did not give their own consent. This issue is present in America and is overlooked upon as something that is inconsequential. Since it is unethical for scientists to make decisions without patients' consent, where is the line drawn regarding patients' rights when people have a right to decide what is taken from their body and what it is used for.
The point has been made clear about the disagreement of uninformed consent —yet it is

still being taken advantage of as this is being read. The initial proposal that researchers required to get permission before using patients tissue for research came out of the desire to avoid repeating what happened to Henrietta Lacks, an American who died of cervical cancer in 1951. Some of the cells from Lacks' cancer were kept alive for decades, used in research and for commercial purposes without her consent or family's knowledge. Unfortunately, in Lacks' case she and her kin were both taken for granted owing to the fact that her immortal cells were being shipped and sold across the world prior to her death as her family were left paying medical bills while Lacks' cells became a multi-billion dollar business known as Hela Cells playing a prominent role in patient and physician confidentiality, which is very much misunderstood because they can be seen are more superior and can use patients' bodily fluids or tissues sample for whatever reason what so ever.
Americans today still don't have entitlement to where their tissue goes after a simple procedure or a yearly blood lab goes at their accustomed doctors' office. An initial proposal was proceeded by former President Barack Obama that contained patient consent to advance onto any further research by scientists'. This request was denied because it was gratuitous and would get in the way of any further research because of the unnecessary large amount of money between consent forms and the loads of effected research samples. "The concern is that there may be inadequate protection for the subjects of the research at a particular site", says Dr. Michael Carome, who heads Public Citizens' Health Research Group, a consumer watchdog group. In other words, citizens aren't really looked after as much as they should be when it comes to circumstances like these ones, especially those who aren't able to speak English, religiously or personally against it, or don't have any proper knowledge when it comes to medical advancements such as the ones wanting to be accomplished. Simply stated, Consent is very much needed for obvious reasoning, but those above us choose to ignore it.
To illustrate the point, authorization is very important documentation and should be highly considered out of respect for patient confidentiality. A side from being a topic that is never forgotten and always brought up it makes perfect sense onto why it is very hard to not want to give consent to patients. Other than that, people may want to hold the right of choosing whether they want their tissue sample used in research or discarded. As a result, many may believe that they should hold more than just a right to saying no, they also hold the right to their own body under any circumstances. After all, as individuals that are bound to make decisions whether life changing or not that choice should be made first hand on their own, there is not enough money and riches an individual could have to say otherwise.