Before 1951, the ability to grow cells derived from animal tissue remained elusive. While cells derived could grow for a short period of time, they ignominiously died and could not be propagated. This changed in 1951 when a woman by the name of Henrietta Lacks was biopsied for a painful tumor and later died. Cells derived from her cervical cancer were found to thrive in an artificial environment. This gave rise to the birth of biotechnology and the techniques learned from propagating these cells would eventually lead to advancements in finding a Polio vaccine. For this assignment, listen to the Radiolab Podcast.
Post a reply that addresses the following:
- First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
- There’s a controversy over the ownership of the cells.
- Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
- Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
- Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
- Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
- Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
- Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
Try to make this a cohesive essay that addresses all the points as opposed to answering each point individually. When you just answer points, it is hard to understand your responses. This assignment is due November 24th.
-All the different voices were kind of confusing because I was trying to stay focus in one person and so i had to hear this over and over again! But then again it helped me out because they were all different kinds of sources.
-The cells first were taken from Dr.Golde (i think that’s his name) and he spread it to other scientist.
-in my opinion, no.
-No i don’t think it was ethical. If the person is dead they should let them stay in peace unless the family wanted to find out more (which they didn’t bother to ask).
-I think Henrietta’s economic status had nothing to do with the removal of her cells without consent because the women did mention that she was a proud women because she had nail polish on her toes even though it was chipped because she couldn’t take care of herself.
-I think her racial background did factor into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent because if the person was white i believe they will ask the family for permission and because Henrietta was colored at that time it didn’t matter if they was to say yes or no.
-I think they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family because they did take more cells out of the corpse without permission and they are spreading something that was in her all over the world with her name which should had been confidential since they basically ‘stoled’ a dead person’s cells. Also, one of her daughter’s did mention that she didn’t want her mother’s cells going around.
-I believe the outcome of the court case is unfair. Moore should be able to sue his doctor AND the other parties that might be culpable for exploiting him. They never asked him if he wanted to sell it to the laboratory or have it destroy. If he was to sell it he would of came out winning by getting money from it and if he was to destroy it then they wouldn’t had access to it – he didn’t choose neither so that did not give them a right to keep it and make money from it.
1)) For me, all the voices were a distraction and i didn’t know who was speaking at what time. Their weren’t subtitles either so it would make it a little easier.
2)) Everyone wanted to experiment on the cells and figure out the mystery.
3)) I believe it is inappropriate to take the cells without consent because probably the family wouldn’t want people testing on a loved one or it can be a cultural reason.
4)) I believe that its not ethical because they just want answers and they should’ve asked for consent but most likely no one wants to give a person who passed away, pain.
5)) No i don’t believe it was due to her racial background because scientist just want some piece of evidence so they can search and look for answers on why people have certain sicknesses.
6)) The lacks family should receive compensation because they took a piece of someone without asking anyone which i believe is wrong, so i think they should get compensation.
7)) The courts decision wasn’t fair, they didn’t have consent which meant they were eligible for taking parts of Moore. The doctor shouldn’t have gotten money because they didn’t have permission.
• The effects were very frightening. I was trying to concentrate, but it kept getting interrupted by “plugging along”. I think the point of that part was to show some type of revelation of trying to fight cancer by replacing the cancer cells with functional cells. But it kept getting bigger and wouldn’t stop growing (the tumor). It moved me in a way only because she ended up dying after
trying to fight it.
• Everyone wanted to use them for an experiment, but they didn’t necessarily belong to anyone.
• I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Who would it hurt ? Are the family members that set on not letting her cells be researched? It just sounds like a child saying “mine” with everything, even though they aren’t using it.
• It shouldn’t have, but it did. If someone with a wealthy stature were to be tested on like that, they most likely would have asked. They know they’re more likely- way more likely to get in trouble for that if that were done to someone with money
• Her race definitely contributed to that maybe even more than her financial status.
• I do not think they should get anything but an “I’m sorry”. Why do they need money? Because someone wanted to help the world with science with the cells of a person that most likely no one would care about? Is it right? No, it isn’t. But I never believed in Money as an exchange for anything it can’t buy. If he did make money off of it, then it would be reasonable to give the Lacks family compensation.
• There is obviously racism involved. In most cases, even though I believe they shouldn’t get anything, the court was wrong and should have given them compensation. When someone takes something without asking, that is stealing no matter what it’s for. However he did not make any money off of it. This could have gone either way, but I’m surprised it went that way.
1) The voices had the effect of grabbing my attention and made me pay more attention to what they were saying, so I found it very effective.
2)I don’t think there was a controversy, because the person who first took the cells didn’t do it for money but for science and then was spread everywhere.
3) I think that it was ethically wrong for them to take cells a second time especially since she was dead, its like they overstepped the moral boundaries.
4) In the name of science I say yes, because I find what they did very fascinating and helpful for the future. I know I sound inconsiderate, but because of her cells she made things possible.
5) Well, I don’t think that her economical status had anything to do with it.
6) I don’t think in her situation it had anything to do with it, because it could have happened to anyone but in this case it was Lacks’ cells which were unique. I think it all started with an idea, then an accomplishment.
7) YES, they should have provided them with money. As the daughter said when speaking to her mothers cell ” You are famous” and with fame comes fortune.
8) What if David Golde didn’t make a profit out of the cells? I don’t think that Moore would care, but since there was money involved he did . For example
If there was a painting that you decided to throw out you put it in front of the house with all the other trash, a person walks by and takes it, he discovers the painting is valuable and sells it for a massive amount of money. You cannot go to that person and claim that the painting is yours and you deserve a profit. What you throw out is considered trash an anyone can claim it. So I think the ruling was fair.
1) At first the random outbursts were disturbing; but the voices actually made the situation sound more serious. This lady’s cells were taken from her dead corpse, and the voices added the effect of ‘how incredible is that’.
2) Someone made an incredible discovery in these particular cells that changed and improved medicine but the cells never belonged to him.
3) It was definitely inappropriate to basically steal this poor lady’s cells as her body laid down, cold in a morgue. I think the mortician was wrong as well to allow this man to take what wasn’t his without any consent or conformation. Although what he discovered greatly improved medicine, it was wrong, he robbed Henrietta.
4) As I said before, he robbed this lady for what was hers without getting the okay. That was definitely unethical.
5) Yes, I think her economical status played a part. However, I think the mortician would question who gave this man the right to want to have a woman cut open for his own personal experiment if she was of higher stature. Then the community would question his motives, some may even call him a monster.
6) Yes, same answer as question 5. If she was a white woman, more people would of questioned this man (especially considering the era).
7) Yes, however I feel that moral support was more important than financial. Her daughter doesn’t have any record of her deceased mother, wondering what she loved to do and if she breastfed. Then, to find out that her mother is being spread around the world as medical contribution. That hurts, scientists know more about her mother than she does. That isn’t right. In today’s society, people get compensation over “emotional distress” so why not pay the family.
8) The court decision was indeed unfair. But what if money was never involved, would Moore even care? I don’t think so. Either way, Moore should able to sue the Dr. Golde and anyone who knew what he was doing because it was unethical.
Henrietta Lack was the first human ever to have immortal cell line after her death.The effect the voices had on me were powerful I felt like I was watching a movie or as if I was sitting with them during the interviews because of the sounds effects also and the voices of how it use to sound back in the days. I don’t think it was appropriate at first when because of how wrong it just sounds but then I thought about how they werent really cutting her up or doing any physical changes they were just taking cells to find something and I believe it benefited everyone. As I noted before I think they werent really trying to do anything in a personal way they were just trying to find answers and its wasnt like the doctor was receiving money from the cells he just wanted to get somewhere and find something an answer. I Believe that the scientist and doctors had good intentions and that they weren’t doing it because of her economic status at all, It may sound like lacks was cared for but she was dead and just by taking a few cells she could save and help a lot of people and I think from what I heard about her in the radio Podcast she wouldn’t mind helping.I honestly don’t think her race mattered because she had something different that scientist and doctors couldn’t find and her cells were the one’s that worked for a reason that remains a mystery according to the Podcast.I don’t think that they are obligated to provide compensation for lack’s family only because it was freely distributed around the world for beneficial reasons and also it wasn’t about the money and I don’t think debra was there for money she was amazed that her mother was around the world she was famous and that gave her something to hold on to. In the case of David Golde, there is money involved it changes everything because I believe its no longer about helping the future but helping oneself and that does affect having ownership of your body because taking someones body parts for selfish reasons just makes it wrong in my opinion.
In 1950, Henrietta Lacks entered The Johns Hopkins Hospital to begin treatment for a cancer she had discovered by herself, and after her death it was discovered that her cells were immortal. The effect of voices in describing this historical event to me felt like a narrative being told, the different voices used in describing the event made it important and kinda mysterious with the background noise but in all it grabbed my attention. Although the cells still belonged to Henrietta even after her death because no one had a consent to take her cells, but to be fair It was Dr Gey who was first given the cell to research on it since he had a deal with the hospital Henrietta went to. For researchers to take Henrietta’s cells from her biopsy without her or her families consent was not appropriate at all, because the researcher had no right to do this, doing that is invasion of her privacy. Sending the lab assistant to retrieve more cells from the corpse was not ethical at all, again because they had no permission to take Henrietta’s cells. Since black people were still discriminated and lived in poor conditions in the 1950’s economical status of Henrietta may have taken part in removing her cells without permission from anyone. Although John Hopkins didn’t make any money of the cells but did it for the field of science and medicine, I think the Lacks family should have been given some kind of compensation because Henrietta’s cells were taken without any consent from the family members. Similar to Henrietta’s cells being used without any consent, the court case Moore v. Regents of the University of California used mr. Moore’s cell in their research without her knowledge. The court ruled in favor of Regents of the university of California. I think the court ruling was unfair because although Moore signed a written consent with the hospital,the consent only said the hospital could “dispose of any severed tissue or member by cremation”, it didn’t say anything about researching with the cells therefore they didn’t have any permission for their research.
A woman by the name Henrietta Lacks in 1951 died due to cancer at John Hopkin’s Hospital. When I was listening to the video it was confusing at first because there were so many voices, I had to rewind multiple times. I think it’s extremely unethical that they continuously cut up her body and take out cells. Not only that they didn’t have her consent or her family when they were aware of their existence. Even though it benefitted science in a good way and it is clear they had good intentions because they didn’t benefit in any profitable way which they could’ve. I truly believe that her racial status took in play into the removal of her cells without consent. I do not think her economical status had to do with this removal of her cells. I think it is necessary to at least offer a compensation to Lack’s family because it was already disrespectful enough that they didn’t get consent. One of Lack’s daughters did express her feelings about her mother’s cells being everywhere and that her mother wouldn’t be able to rest in peace. The outcome of the court case Moore vs. Regents of the University of California was unfair that they court ruled in favor of the university. The doctors got money from taking parts of Moore without consent, technically its stealing. It is really sad that someone can just get away with doing such a thing.
– there are so many voices going on at the same time so it was kind of distracting and hard to follow.
– i dont think there was a controversy, everyone wanted to experiment the cell.
– i think it was unappropriate to take the cells of a dead person just to find out more stuff for their own purpose. Its only appropriate if the family asked them to do it.
– i dont thinj it was ethical because they should just leave the dead body alone and shouldnt have taken cells without notifying the family.
– i dont think it has anything to do with her economical status or racial background.
– i think they are obligated to provide compensation to the lack family. Because they did take out more cells without asking for the familys permission just because they want to find out more.
– i think the court decision is unfair because Moore should be able to sue him and the doctor shouldnt have gotten money because they didnt have any permissions.
1. The voices that was describing about the events were very interesting. It helped me get into what they were talking about more especially with the information.
2. Yes there was an ownership problem since it was sent to multiple places.
3. I think it was inappropriate that they took cells out of a person without consent because maybe the family wanted it to let her be and not know what the reason was for her death.
4. I still think it was inappropriate for the lab assistant to take more because even though she was already opened up from the autopsy they should still contact the family about it.
5. I don’t think it was because of the economical part they probably thought about how brave and strong this woman was and still present her even if it was nail polish on her toes.
6. I did feel like her racial background did have some effect to it.
7. I think it was wrong because after this whole time her daughter did not know about her still being alive even if it’s a cell but them getting to still study on it and not tell her its unacceptable.
8. It wasn’t fair because if it was supposed to be part of them they would make on their contracts that they have partial credit for it. The doctor shouldn’t of have some part of the money because if he wanted it he would of done the tests.
First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
For me, everyone speaking at once made me feel like the topic was very important. The effect of different voices did move me because it made me feel like everyone came together to talk about a very important woman, Henrietta Lacks, who made a big difference in terms of science and the health in other people.
There’s a controversy over the ownership of the cells.
Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
I do think it was appropriate to take cells from her biopsy without consent because overall they did it with good intentions. Taking her cells made artificial cell developments possible which eventually lead to making the Polio Vaccine possible. By all means I do think it was appropriate because her cells helped save other lives.
Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
To the family it might have not seemed very honorable, but if you look at the bigger picture and analyze the overall cause, it was ethical. If someone close to me passed away over a sickness and that sickness could help determine vaccines and cures, I would be more than willing to help and also give my consent to help make a difference and also save lives.
Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
It is highly possible that her economical status was a factor, money does have a very powerful voice in society and could maybe even granted her better treatment while she was alive.
Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
Her racial background definitely was also a factor because this was before the civil rights movement and she was a woman of color which probably made them feel like they had more of a right to do whatever they wanted with her body and not really considered what the family thought.
Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
No I don’t because they weren’t the ones who died if anything I feel like Henrietta should be the one to hold all the honor since she was the one who made the difference.
Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
The court decision was definitely unfair but if money was compensated to Moore I don’t think he would have cared, either way I think that it was inhuman, how do you steal body parts and lie about what you’re doing without the patients consent? He should have at least asked Moore.
1. At first all the different voices confuse me a little. After it caught my attention and made me pay more attention to what they were saying. The different voice made this bro-cast interesting listen to what everyone had to say.
2. I don’t believe there is any controversy, because the cell didn’t belong to anyone. Everyone just wanted to conduct an experiment with the cells.
3. I think it was inappropriate to take the cells of Henrietta without the consent of her family. Is hard to lose a love one and the family probably just want her to rest in peace. They didn’t want to know the reason of her death.
4. I think it was unethical to take Henrietta cells the second time around without the consent of her family. This just got me wondering what really happens in a morgue. No privacy not even for the dead. Even though good came out of this I still strongly believe it was wrong.
5. No, I don’t think it had anything to do with her racial background. I think that the scientist just got lucky with Henrietta cell, and they were able to do research and find answers with the cells.
6. Yes, I feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family, after what they did just taking the cells without any consent. That’s the least they can do.
7. The court’s decision was unfair. But I think that the only reason why Moore care was because there was money involve. No matter what I still think Moore had the right to sue Dr. Golde and anyone that was his accomplices.
In 1951, a woman named Henrietta Lacks died due to a cancer that she had discovered beforehand on her own at John Hopkins Hospital. As I was listening to the clip I had a hard time understanding the voices at first only because there was multiple voices and also because it did sound like the way things were recorded back in the day. I think it is more unethical because no consent was given. It was understandable that her cells did benefit science and no negative intentions were involved but to use a persons cells without any consent is just virtually wrong. It was an invasion of Hanriettas privacy to take cells from her body. As we know black people did not have the same equal rights as white people so it wasn’t taken upon as seriously. It was also cruel that Hanriettas family did not get some kind of compensation considering the cells provided money for science and medicine. What touched me the most was that Hanriettas’ daughter spoke about her feelings when she said her mothers cells are out there and so her mothers wouldn’t be able to rest in peace knowing that. The outcome of the court case Moore vs. Regents of the University of California was very unfair because the court ruled in favor of the University.
The voices heard in describing the historical events was a little bi confusing to me, I couldn’t really know who was talking. I know a scientist spread the news to other scientist. I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to take cells from a biopsy without consent, but then again that person is dead anyway. When the assistant went into the morgue to get more cells, especially without the family’s consent, I think that was very unethical, but I think that the assistant kind of figured that out because she said that she couldn’t do this no more. Henrietta’s economic background has nothing to do with the removal of her cells,on the other hand it was without consent so it is still morally wrong. In my opinion there is racism because it was back in the fifty’s so I think that because she was black they did not care for consent. I don’t think it’s that important but, no because Henrietta died and her body made a difference not anybody in her family. This court case was unfair. I think that the doctor only did this because there was money involved and did not care for Moore.
The voices heard in the podcast showed the reaction of the different people who were involved with the cells directly or indirectly. At times these voices complicated the understanding of the podcast itself. However, the voices of the family members were distinct because from their tone you could tell that they were very concerned. At this time when there was really no research done on these cells, I find that it was perfectly fine to take these cells to do research without the consent. After all, it was for a good cause. I do think that Henrietta’s economical status had a role in the taking of her cells without consent. If it were someone who came from a rich family or had rich relatives, then there would be much more of a fight over what happens to the body at the morgue. I think that her racial background also had an effect on the removal of her cells. It could be assumed that the consequences for taking the cells from a black woman would be far less greater from taking the cells of a white woman or man for that matter. I fell that the family should receive some sort of compensation from the research done from Henrietta’s cells because they were taken without consent. They had no choice, so they have to receive some sort of a thank you for this breakthrough from the government. I believe that the court case’s outcome was not fair because he did something that is seen as unethical by society.
Open Lab Assignment #3
1. All of the people speaking at the same time at first was kind of distracting but all the different voices talking about the tumor and Henrietta Lacks made me feel apart of the conversation. They really went into detail.
2.I think it was appropriate to take cells from her biopsy without consent because overall they did it to help others. Taking her cells made artificial cell developments possible and lead to making the Polio Vaccine. I think it was appropriate because her cells helped better the health of others.
3. If I was her family at first I would proably be upset. The amazing thing about it is that it was going to help other people get better. I feel like it was ethical. If that was me I would want people the use my cells to help determine vaccines and cures. If one of my family members died would give permission to help and give my consent to help better medicine.
4.It is possible that her economical status was a factor. If she had more money she proably would have had better treatment.
5. I believe if she was white they would have asked her family for permission. Her race was a factor because back then they felt like people with color did not have much rights. They probably figured they didn’t have to ask for consent.
6. I think they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family because they did take more cells out of the corpse without permission from the family. They are using her name all around the world. It should be confidential especially since they stole her cells. One of her daughter’s did mention that she didn’t want her mother’s cells going around.
7. The court decision was unfair but if money was compensated to Moore he proably would not have cared. I think that it is crazy how do you steal body parts and lie about what you’re doing without the patients consent? The least he could have done was ask Moore.
The voices I heard that were describing the historical even were a bit confusing at first because there were many voices talking at once. As time went on I began to understand what was going on and the broadcast became more interesting afterwards. I do not exactly believe there was any controversy because the cell did not really belong to anyone, but everyone wanted to conduct an experiment with the cell. I think it was appropriate to take the cells from her biopsy without her consent because number one, she is dead so she can not give consent, and number two, they used to for good reasons. Her cells ended up helping and saving many people. For her family it might not have seemed like a good thing to do but in general it was ethical for the lab assistant to gather more samples. If her cells could lead to vaccines and cures then it makes a bunch of sense to use these resources to save lives. Henrietta’s economical background has nothing to do with the removal of her cells although it could have been possible because money is such a strong thing. Her racial background could have possibly been a factor because she was a black woman in the civil rights era so this probably gave them reason to do what they want without her family’s consent. I think they are obligated to provide compensation to Henrietta’s family because they did use her body without consent and she is the reason for saving many lives so this miracle should be celebrated and the money should be shared with her family. I believe the court’s decision was unfair because Moore should be able to sue and the doctor should not have received any compensation because they did not have any permission.
1. The voices sound as if they were trying to make a horror story. No voices were effected because each one jump from one poit lf view to another making it hard to follow along. No they did not move me in any way.
2. I didn’t notice anyone fighting over the cells. I think there were no controversy because the cells were being used for science rather than fame and fortune.
3. I don’t think it was because to begin with theyare not even related to the family. The family should have a right to know what happens to the remains of their loved ones.
4. It was not ethical because once again, the family should have had a right to know what was going on. Just because someone dies doesn’t mean there aren’t family members that can’t decide to what happens to their loved ones.
5. I think it did because if it would have been someone high- class then they would have respectedthe family and asked consent.
6. This was during the period of segregation so I believe it did. Back then African- American weren’t seen as people with any right to anything.
7. I think yes, but not with money. If Hopkins at any point did make some money with the cells then the family should receive money as well. Hopkins stole from the family their privacy and a part of someone they can’t
8. The court will never be able to undo the damage his doctor did. So at the end ther is no fair or unfair decision. It was correct though that Moore recieved his share of money because the cells were his and without him there would have not been any cell line.
In 1951, Henrietta Lacks died from cancer at John Hopkin’s Hospital. Hearing the different voices was irritating. It made it more difficult for me to focus on what they were saying. I think it was inappropriate to take the cells out without consent. If I or a loved one passed away, I wouldn’t want anyone going near our corpses. I believe it was unethical for the lab assistant to go and retrieve more cells from the corpse without the family’s permission. When a person is dead, no one should do anything to their corpse unless they get consent from the family. They didn’t even bother to ask her family for permission and still went to take out more cells. I believe her economical status was a factor for the removal of her cells. I think if she was wealthy they would’ve asked for permission from her family. I also believe her racial background was a factor. In the 1950s, segregation was still going on. I think they didn’t care about her family’s consent because she was colored. I think they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family.Henrietta’s cells were taken without permission from the family, so they should at least give some sort of compensation. I believe the court decision was unjust. However, if money was never involved then I don’t think Moore would’ve cared. I still believe that Moore should be able to sue Dr. Golde for the reason that it was dishonest and immoral.
1. at first I thought that the voices in background were not appropriate because it was confusing and I couldn’t reall understand what the were saing and who was talking but then the got me in the story of Henrietta and I they moved me because they made it real with people’s testimonies and they made made it more interesting to listen.
2.no I don’t think there was a controversy. the first doctor took the cells with good intentions and then he spreaded the information to the other scientists.
3. I think it was unethical because the should have asked the family consent before taking the cells out of her body.
4.it was still unethical for the family side because they might didn’t want the people to take her cells but from the science side this helped a lot for the future so I believe it is still a good thing the did.
5.6. I believe that both economical and ratial factored of the removal of Henrietta’s cells without consent because they are both very powerful aspects and maybe if she would have been rich and white things would have happened differently and the scientists would have acted in a different way probably.
7.No I believe that Henrietta should be the one to be holding honors becuase even though she died she made a difference in science and for the world.
8.the decision of the court was completely unfair, the doctor just cared about the money and it was wrong because he should have asked the permission.
The podcast began with the story of Henrietta Lacks, who discovered a tumor that happened to be malignant, and later died from cancer. Scientists later used cells from her body for personal research. This research was revolutionary in the field of medicinal research. However, there was controversy over how Lacks’ cells were obtained. Scientists used her cells without the patient’s family’s consent. Although an unethical decision, I believe that the unapproved extraction of Lacks’ cells was due more to the overzealous tendencies of the scientists for recognition and good reputation rather than an ill-natured action based on the exploitation of the race and financial status of Lacks (Lacks was African-American). However, with the fame Lacks’ name has gained, as well as the contribution her cells have had to science, I feel that monetary compensation would justly be in order for her family, who have expressed their discontent at the scientists’ methods. In a similar story, the more recent case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California saw the plaintiff being excluded from any of the profits gained from the cells taken from his body during the treatment of his cancer. Once again, this is an unjust decision, as Moore had not consented Dr. Golde’s practices, and was responsible for the profits gained by the latter.
In my case, the voices added a greater connection to the story as they were provided by several people directly involved with the incident.
The effect of the voices describing the historical events made me feel more interested in knowing what was going to happen after something that has caught my attention. I believe it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent because it’s for the benefit of the woman who has the tumor. Knowing the history of these cells would help other future cases to avoid tumor similar in this scenario, or it can even help avoid the tumor completely to occur in other people’s bodies. At the end of the day, the woman may be the hero and the survivor of all people who had chances to get a tumor in their bodies. This goes for the lab assistant who went into the morgue to retrieve more cells from the corpse, as well. The lab assistant is actually doing the person who has the tumor and its family a favor in order to tell them what has caused the tumor to grow. As mentioned before, both the person who has the tumor and its family will be greatly appreciated because at the end of the day, they’re helping to find a way to cure the tumor and find the cause of the tumor. I also believe Henrietta’s economical status and racial background didn’t factor in the removal of her cells because the reason for removing some of her cells didn’t have to do with Henrietta being rich, poor, black, or white, it mainly had to do with her cancer cells that doctors have never seen before, which led to doctors investigating furthermore what was the cause of those cancer cells. The fields of Science and Medicine should have been obliged to provide compensation to the Lacks family because they did use Henrietta’s cells without their consent after all, even though they did it for a good reason, but since Henrietta’s daughter didn’t like the fact that her mother’s cells were still living, even though she has died, Henrietta’s cells were sent to many locations. That being said, this proves that the fields of Science and Medicine has made lots of money by sending these cells to more locations in order to get more investigation into the cells. Therefore, the fields of Science and Medicine shouldn’t have hesitated in providing compensation to the Lacks family and show respect to Henrietta’s daughter, especially. In the case of the University of California and how David Golde received money from the sale of Moore’s cells, it is unfair that Moore lost the case because the cells did belong to his body and yet he had to defend the fact that he did not like how Golde decided to sell his cells in various locations. Now, if he would’ve received part of the money, it probably would’ve been okay, but the fact that Golde decided to sell his cells without Moore’s consent wasn’t the right choice to make at all.
Voices in background helped me to imagine and understand the story better. Especially then I heard lab assistant and a daughter talking that made me feel, as I’m a part of the story. There’s no controversy here, all cells were used for research and science experiments. In 1950 science had more mysteries, doctors wanted to find out all ways possible to understand how to grow human cells outside the body. It wasn’t really appropriate, but the results were stunning, vaccines were discovered and so on. Lab assistant was doing her job, doctor asked to take more cells, she obey. The economical status or racial background for such a purpose didn’t factored removal of her cells. Doctor new that this is going to be a revolution; nothing would stop him at that moment, he new how meaningful it’s going to be for humanity. In my opinion Lacks family shouldn’t be provided with compensations because everything was done not for commercial reasons, Dr. John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine. Situation is completely different in John Moore story. The outcome of the court case was unfair, because doctor was seeking to get a profit from a patient.