Lauren Mateja
Henrietta Lack’s Assignment
November 28, 2017
Dr. Tekin
1. Was it ethical to use Henrietta’s cells in medical research without her own or her
family’s consent, given that informed consent was not legally required then?
In my opinion, I do not believe it was ethical to use Henrietta’s cells in medical research without
her knowledge of it as well as after her death, her family having no knowledge on it as well.
According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is absolutely necessary and this was
clearly disregarded by the doctors of her case. However, because of the scientific breakthroughs
due to her cells, one can argue that it was ethically moral to use her cells based on the principle
of utilitarianism due to the fact that it brought amount the greatest amount of happiness to the
majority of people. On the other hand, Kantian ethics argues that no matter the consequence, it
is still not right to lie, and in this case, not only was Henrietta lied to without her knowledge of
the use of her cells, but her family was lied to for over twenty years about the fact that cells of
Henrietta were still alive, were being used for experimentation, and were being profited off of.
From these two standpoints, I want to initially side with Kantian Ethics because I believe that it
was unethical to use her cells without her informed consent or without the family’s informed
consent, even though scientifically, knowing the great benefit that her cells have played for the
medical community, I tend to side with Utilitarianism and it is hard for me to argue against the
use of her cells.
2. Was it ethical for researches from johns Hopkins take samples from Henrietta
Lacks’ children in 1973 to further HeLa research again without informed consent?
From my argument in question one, I definitely believe it was unethical to take samples from
Henrietta Lack’s children without their consent. At this point in 1973, the Nuremberg Code was
established over 25 years prior, and informed consent was established in the American court
system over 15 years prior to that. Lawfully and ethically, it was wrong to take samples from the
children and this would go hand and hand with Kantian Ethics. Even if one were to argue against
Kantian ethics with Utilitarianism, scientifically, the samples from the children weren’t of much
significant discovery and did not bring great happiness to the majority. Overall, I believe it was
unethical for the children’s samples to be used in research without informed consent.
3. How does Lack’s intersectional identity as an African American woman from a
lower income background shape the ways in which she and her family were treated
in the medical context? Would it make a difference if she wasn’t poor or wasn’t an
African American?
Medically in this time, African American’s were treated more poorly than white American’s and
this could have definitely played a role within the entirety of the case, even up to present day.
Although it is not clear, George Gey’s experiments on the HeLa cells were conducted for the
main reason to further his medical career, not as much due to race and socioeconomic status of
Henrietta and her family. But, the fact that her cells were continued to be used over time,
especially profited from by The Microbiological Associates, could suggest that racism may have
affected the outcome of how Henrietta’s family was compensated for the use of her cells. One
can than further conclude the possibilities that due to her race and socioeconomic status, her
treatment from her doctors were not optimal. However, the discovery and use of her immortal
cells without consent were not caused directly due to her race and socioeconomic status, the two
just happened to be correlated within the case and led to the many discoveries made at the time.
4. Are your cells you? Are cells persons?
Although I do not believe cells are a person, they are a part of a person. Cell’s cannot feel,
cannot reason, cannot talk or walk as a human can, but because they are a part of a human, they
should be treated as the human would want them to be treated. This is the basis of the case of
Henrietta’s immortal cells. Although her cells weren’t all of her per say, they were a part of her
and she and her family should have been notified when a part of her was used for
experimentation and for profit. Although society greatly benefited from the research of her cells,
these unethical advancements cannot be overshadowed by the discoveries that came from it just
because it wasn’t an entire human/person affected, just that person’s cells.
5. What do you think about Medicine and commercialization? Should medicine be sold
for profit?
I believe medicine should not be commercialized in any way but because of politics and society
in the modern day, loss of funding makes it hard to conduct very important research that needs to
be conducted in order to progress not only as a country but all together over the world. I don’t
believe that the cells of Henrietta should have been profited off of, especially without the
compensation towards her family. However, if the only way to drive research and advancement
of science is through commercialization, due to lack of funding from the government, it is
important that we continue on a tract of commercialization, or we change how the government
funds medical research. Regardless of what change will be made, it must be done ethically with
every aspect of the patient in mind because they are of the main priority.