Do the ends justify the means? (HeLa cells)

Book written on it. I haven’t read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/dp/1400052173

Normally, I would say no, but with all the good this has done, and with so little intrusion on Ms. Lacks, I will say good for the medical industry, and God Bless all envolved.

@Rarebear read it when it was first released, I really do believe her family deserves compensation for all the hell this has put them through.

@King_Pariah What happened? How was she put thru a lot?

First off she went to Johns Hopkins way back in the day and first they cured her, and then they killed her with cancer.

Her family had to suffer much unwanted attention from the media plus several lawsuits and an ingeniously annoying and devastating con man. Also, for a very, very long time people got Mrs. Lacks information all messed up. They said she was white, she was black. They said she had four kids, she had five. They said her name was Helen Lane, it’s Henrietta Lacks. They said the cells were donated, bullsh*t. The list goes on, if you want a pretty thorough look at all of them, read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. It was definitely a good read

I have read the above-referenced book. As for the question, one could argue that permission to treat was granted and that the cells that were removed were cervical cancer cells. Clearly, Henrietta wanted treatment for her condition and that involved removing the cells. Medical research practices at the time were not what they are today (e.g., institutional review boards with human subjects oversight, etc.) and one can certainly point to any number of examples of racist practices rampant during the period when this transpired (e.g., the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment). Although the researchers had been trying to grow a cancer cell line, they simply had not been successful before Henrietta’s cells. It was a fluke or the luck of the draw.

One could argue that she certainly didn’t want the cancer cells (either in or out of her body). The greater issue is that, once cultured, billions of dollars have been made in whole or in part because of Henrietta’s “contribution” and her family never derived benefit from the resultant cell line or discoveries resulting from the cells. There are any number of individuals who willingly (donating a body to science) or unwittingly (research done on tissue removed from an individual during a surgery) neither of whom receive compensation. Certainly, there was no way to compensate the family for the loss of their mother/wife who died as a result of the cervical cancer.

The question that gets raised is “should they receive some type of compensation because the HeLa cell lines were wildly successful in bringing about a number of positive outcomes in modern medicine?” The science behind culturing the cell line and putting the cells and the knowledge to use is what was ultimately rewarded. Without the science, Henrietta’s cells would have been disposed of. Should someone who donates their tissue be compensated (regardless of the outcome)? We then run the risk of creating an environment where people only donate with a “what’s in it for me” attitude.

I am not sure the family has been through Hell necessarily as they were not even really aware of or fully understanding the implications of the cell line until journalists started asking questions more than 40 years after the original cells were removed. Being hounded by journalists who are asking you scientific questions is certainly unreasonable, but hardly Hellish. The con man was another issue altogether and individuals who prey on other people exist in the absence of a situation like the one in which Henrietta’s family found themselves.

Johns Hopkins did not kill Henrietta Lacks. She died of cervical cancer that was treated in the manner typical to the period. She likely would have died regardless of where she was seen for treatment. Henrietta’s circumstances (poverty, poor education) did not bode well for her being an assertive patient. One could argue that she would have died as a result of cervical cancer even if seen today. Remember that this was in the era of “the doctor is God” and you don’t ask questions, you just follow instructions. This attitude had implications for all patients, regardless of race and, gratefully, seems to be much less common today.

The confusion over her identity is not surprising as the identity of research subjects is often hidden (with no nefarious intent). It is unfortunate on a number of levels that her identity was revealed at all as it is not common practice to identify the source of tissue used in research. The issue is that she did not choose for her cells to become the subject of research. If the question is “should her family be compensated.” My answer is NO.

@Kayak8 I don’t think that a situation such as this should be taken in such a rational light. I realize that you are trying to dissect the situation into its components to come to a reasonable answer, but you seem inconsiderate.

@Kayak8 just looked back into the book and the cervical cancer was cured but the excessive radiation treatment gave her cancer throughout her body, the treatment also literally cooked her body as her skin across her torso was as if it were burned crisp.

@athenasgriffin So you would prefer I use an irrational light? What alternative answer would be more considerate?

@King_Pariah There is something called metastatic cancer. It means cancer has spread from the original location in the body. Henrietta’s cancer spread, but not necessarily as a result of the radiation—sometimes cancer spreads. Keep in mind, that 1951 was a long time ago in terms of medical technology. MRI and CT scans weren’t even available until 20 years later (and they were in their infancy in the 1970s). Radiation burns are awful and it is horrible that she had to endure them. Errors occur in medicine, then and now. I am not entirely clear why radiation burns are part of this discussion (except to indicate that she had a rough time) . . . are you suggesting her family should receive compensation as a result of that element of her story? Just not following. There is no doubt that she had a tough life and dying of cancer is a horrible thing. Her story is compelling.

@Kayak8 I suppose you are right, my response was unnecessary. It is not right for me to dictate that anyone be irrational for the sake of kindness.

@Kayak8, I think your reasoning is sound, and I don’t see anything unkind about answering the question rationally. It’s not as if those who might be in a position to compensate this family had decided to withhold it on account of your comments. To call you unkind in your response seems irrational to me.

I agree with @Kayak8. If there was a con man involved, the right thing to do is go after him and get compensation. Maybe some compensation from whoever purposely/negligently released her identity. Any one else who, themselves, did something wrong should be forced to pay something as well, But that is about it.

Just a note to @King_Pariah , keeping in mind that I haven’t read the book yet… As far as radiation causing more cancer, when one is treated with radiation today, it comes with a caveat that the radiation itself may cause cancer in the future (at least that’s what they told me). In those days they didn’t fine tune the treatments in the same way they do today; they tended to bludgeon the patient with whatever treatment might work. Even with the minimal doses of radiation to be effective I was warned that there was a 15% chance of cancer from the radiation that I received.