The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks free essay sample

Lacks is a mother of five and leads a regular and happy life with her husband, children, and other relatives. This perfect world suddenly disappears when she realises that she has a knot in her womb. She goes to John Hopkins Hospital for treatment. She has cervical cancer. The hospital takes advantage of the situation and of her colour. They use her cancerous cells for research. They repeatedly expose her to high amounts of radiation in order to extract more cells. Years after her inevitable death, her family c to know about HeLa. They are devastated. Through her portrayal of the impact that the revelation of HeLa had on the Lacks family and the fact that the doctors at John Hopkins repeatedly exposed Henrietta to radiation in order to take cancerous cells from her body, Rebecca Skloot brings two questions to mind- Does science murder to dissect? Is taking someone’s cells without their permission ethical? II. We will write a custom essay sample on The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The Author’s Background Rebecca Skloot is a science writer. She has written articles for the New York Times Magazine, O, The Oprah Magazine, and Discover, on topics like goldfish urgery, tissue ownership rights, race and medicine, and food politics (Skloot www). Skloot attained her Bachelor’s degree in biological sciences, and her MFA in creative non-fiction writing (Skloot, www). Being a graduate in biological sciences, Skloot would have a thorough understanding of the main argument presented by the story of Henrietta Lacks. The very fact that Skloot has written on tissue ownership rights and, race and medicine, implies that she has researched both topics well and is an authority on them. She perfectly combines scientific knowledge with emotional impact in the book. She uses the Henrietta Lacks’s daughter, Deborah’s feelings and emotions to literally tug at the heartstrings of the audience. Rebecca Skloot presents the facts as they are. Although, she does try to imply the fact that Henrietta’s cells were used because of her color; however, she leaves it to the reader to form their own opinion as to whether it was right or not. Skloot does not allow her opinion to come in the way and bias the author’s viewpoint. She presents the differing viewpoints and opinions of the family and the researchers. III. The Book’s Argument Rebecca Skloot’s main argument in the book is that researchers should take permission from people before using their cells, tissues, or any other body part for research. It does not matter if the tissue is waste material after a surgery; it was a part of the other person’s body at some point. The person has privacy rights and nobody, regardless of level of authority has a right to violate that privacy. The author develops her argument by quoting what researchers the world over have to say about the case, by talking about the family, and also by mentioning an interesting case called Moore vs. Regents of University of California (Moore vs Regents www). Rebecca Skloot met a lot of doctors and scientists when writing the book. She went to John Hopkins Hospital numerous times during the ten year time period. Researchers in the hospital claimed that Dr. George Gey, the first person to work with the HeLa cells did not earn a lot of money from Henrietta’s cells. (John Hopkins www). However, other researchers in countries like Sweden, Russia, and France earned a lot of money for just researching. A certain amount of the taxes that we pay are contributed to research in the sciences. Henrietta’s cancerous cells helped form a vaccine for polio. They were used for testing human sensitivity to cosmetics. Cancer research is being aided by cancerous HeLa cells. All these researchers acknowledge the fact that Henrietta’s cells are priceless and they have led to enormous breakthroughs in medicinal science. Very few, however, concede to the fact that Henrietta’s family should be compensated and that Henrietta should have been asked before her cells were taken. Henrietta Lacks’s children were devastated when they realised that their mother’s cells had been taken without her permission. They felt that it was unfair that they were living in penury- they could not afford college, health insurance, or any of the luxuries that the rest of the world takes for granted; while their mother’s cells were earning scientists millions of dollars. The emotional impact on the family was even greater. Henrietta’s daughter Deborah is literally the driving force of the book. Skloot helps her make peace with HeLa cells and the fact that although it is not well acknowledged, her mother’s contribution to science would help other people in need- it would be invaluable. The children research their mother by reading articles on her. They try to visualise what kind of a person she would have been. The mood point that Skloot tries to make here is that, although the children knew how their mother’s cells helped the world, they did not basic things about her like- what colour she liked best, what kind of clothes she liked to wear, what she liked to do. They wanted recognition more than compensation. They wanted the world to realise that their mother was a person too (New York Times www). Skloot’s use of the Moore vs Regents of UCLA case plays a very important role in defining the purpose of the book. John Moore was being treated for hairy cell leukaemia by Dr. Golde of UCLA. Golde saw this as a wonderful opportunity to start of a new line of cells-the Moore cells. Therefore, he repeatedly took cells from the patient’s body over a period of seven years. Golde took samples of blood, bone marrow and spleen for Moore. When Moore finally came to know what was happening through his attorney, he fought the case in court against UCLA for malpractice. The court verdict conceded to the fact that Moore had a right to know what was happening to his cells but he did not have any right over a discarded part of his body. Through this example, Rebecca Skloot emphasises the rights of the patient over even discarded parts of their body. It is not ethical to take someone’s cells without asking. They have a right over every part of their body and they have a right to knowledge (Moore www). IV. Opposing Points of View Many people, however, argue that cell research is invaluable and it helps people in wonderful ways. Researchers say that the amount of good that cell research does by saving people’s lives is much too great to be evil. It has led to vaccines being created for illnesses like polio, smallpox, chickenpox and mumps. It can also help cure Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries. The two examples below help support the opposing viewpoints. On the 8th of June this year, Timothy Brown had been cured of AIDS using stem cell research. The blood stem cell transplant that he received was particularly resistant to the HIV virus. Researchers hope to treat other such cases with umbilical cord transplants. This example contradicts with the argument in the book in the sense that it opposes Skloot’s implied claim that cell research is not as good as it seems. Although, there is no apparent controversy about ownership rights in this case, there is still a remote chance of some sort of scandal. The scale of this treatment was not too large and as a result it does not have a negative impact on either the patient or the donor. Probably the fact that there are a lot more laws concerning research nowadays prevents a case like Henrietta Lacks’s case (ABC news www). Other scientists claim that although the patient has a right to know if their cells are being used for research, they cannot lay any claim on the profits from the research other than treatment (San Diego www). This viewpoint would be unethical in the view of the book because it completely contradicts the book’s main argument. It is important to advance in technology but it should not be so overbearing that all rules are forgotten. If a scientist is working on new type of cell research, they need to comply to all the ethics associated with it. They cannot just let a patient be ignorant of the fact that their cells are being used. Doctors in John Hopkins have dedicated an entire section to Henrietta Lacks on their website. However, they do not feel even a little remorseful about the fact that they had not asked either Henrietta or her family for permission to use her cells for research (John Hopkins www). V. Conclusion In conclusion, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks emphasises that although the HeLa cells play a very important role in advancing major technology, the scientists should have informed the Lacks family that the cells were being used. Ethicality would have been in actually asking either Henrietta or her husband for written permission to use the cells. Rebecca Skloot perfectly contrasts the views of the family and the views of researchers. Skloot does not try to imply that cell research is wrong, she just calls for a more ethical procedure. Her purpose was also to tell the world about Henrietta’s story. She brings to light the fact that we have all been helped by Henrietta in some way or the other. She persuades the audience to be thankful to this great woman. It was indeed a touching and beautiful narrative. VI. Works Cited