At first glance, the harvesting of cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks' tumor seems like no big deal. She clearly doesn't want the cancer to remain inside her. And who wouldn't jump at the chance to help humankind simply by offering their unwanted tissues to researchers? Well, that there's the point of contention.
In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Skloot says that "donating" or "contributing" tissues implies consent on the part of patient or family. It's a basic requirement of ethical scientific research when human subjects are involved, something that we now take for granted thanks to things like the Nuremburg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. But in Henrietta's day, the idea that a patient had ultimate control over his or her body and the right to self-determination was not so clearly articulated. And as we see in the case of the Kennedy Krieger Institute, there are plenty of ethical violations in treatment and research today.
Questions About Morality and Ethics
- What ethical issues are at stake in the case of Henrietta Lacks and HeLa cells?
- Why were the HeLa researchers worried about being required to get informed consent?
- The Declaration of Helsinki says, among other things, that physicians must protect the "right to self-determination" of human research subjects. What does this mean? How do you think this might apply in discussions of Henrietta Lacks' case today?
- Why did the researchers violate Henrietta's privacy by publishing her name?
Chew on This
Deborah Lacks' main concern is to understand her mother's role in scientific research and to make sure she was recognized for her role in it—not to claim her share of profits from HeLa cells.
The regulation of experimentation on human subjects was necessary because the scientific and medical community was not capable of monitoring the actions of researchers on its own.