Henrietta Lacks By Rebecca Skloot: An Analysis
Rebecca Skloot’s, The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks, resurrects the untold journey of HeLa cells and their source through the relaying research conducted by Skloot, effectively awakening the prevailing ethical issues associated with human experimentation and organ donation, which in essence reflects the bigotry and ongoing prejudice of African Americans during the 1950s. Skloot successfully crafts the novel, vigorously resuscitating the painful story of the Lacks’ through the several interviews she conducts. To begin with, for over 60 years, the cells of Henrietta Lacks have been the saviors of innumerable amounts of lives. Henrietta’s cells, commonly known as HeLa cells, were taken without her acknowledgment while being treated for cervical cancer. Dissimilar to
…show more content…
other cells, HeLa cells live and grow continually in culture. These “immortal” cells radically revolutionized the medical field, ultimately helping develop the polio vaccine, drugs for treating leukemia, hemophilia, Parkinson’s disease, influenza and herpes, as well as cloning and numerous cancer treatments. Subsequently, throughout the novel Skloot rivets the history of the collision between medicine, ethics, and race, auspiciously raising the question- Do people have the right to ‘sell” their body, tissues, or organs if they wish? In answering this question, the contrast between questions of law and public policy, and personal morality, must be addressed. Should the sale of organs be allowed by law? If not prohibited will the purchase of an organ for oneself be morally problematic? In continuity, many arguments have been presented in favor of the authorization of the currently illegal sale of organs. Primarily, sane adults obtain the freedom to do as they wish with their own bodies, especially when not considerably detrimental to others. For that reason, when in absence of the reasons to do otherwise, people, specifically adults, should certainly be granted the permission to sell parts of their bodies as they wish. Also, by allaying the considerably sized scarcity of transplant organs, the allowance of the sale of organs, as claimed by scientists, will expectedly save countless amount of lives. Thus, because of this, organ sales may be defended as a benefaction in the salvation of lives as well as an economic improvement:
“Recent research suggests paying for organs could reduce societal health care costs long-term. An Oct. study showed that if people were able to pay $10,000 for a living kidney donation, medical costs -- such as related to dialysis treatments - would go down overall and patients would get additional quality years of life compared to the current system.” (Castillo, Michelle. "Ethical Dilemmas Surround Those Willing to Sell, Buy Kidneys on Black Market.”)
The decent route the government should take should be to permit people, even if in exchange for money, to hold or give their organs without restriction, especially at the time of death.
Thousands of lives would be saved. According to Santa Clara University’s Publications article Kidneys for Sale:
“Currently, prospects are grim for people in need of organ transplants. For every 100,00 transplant operations needed each year, only 10,000 are performed. Biomedical breakthroughs have greatly increased our capacity to perform successful transplants, increasing the demand for transplantable organs. But the supply of organs has not increased. Many people are simply reluctant to donate their bodily parts. In response to the shortage, proposals have come forth advocating the sale of non-vital human organs.” (Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Organ Selling and Transplants." Organ Selling and Transplants.)
In relation to the ongoing debate of whether organ sales should be legalized it must be recognized that benevolence best distributes by the respect and recognition given to civil liberty, and yet the deprivation of both presents itself in the case of organ sales with awfully adverse resulting
consequences. Regardless of having forceful and fine tuned laws, most areas of authority obtain the inability to control organ trafficking and provide organs to the poverty-stricken community. Several reports of the abduction and murder of children and adults to “harvest” their organs have been made. Countless amounts of people around the world live in sufferance, but not because the organs they need are unavailable but because “morality” does not allow these humans to have access to them.
other cells, HeLa cells live and grow continually in culture. These “immortal” cells radically revolutionized the medical field, ultimately helping develop the polio vaccine, drugs for treating leukemia, hemophilia, Parkinson’s disease, influenza and herpes, as well as cloning and numerous cancer treatments. Subsequently, throughout the novel Skloot rivets the history of the collision between medicine, ethics, and race, auspiciously raising the question- Do people have the right to ‘sell” their body, tissues, or organs if they wish? In answering this question, the contrast between questions of law and public policy, and personal morality, must be addressed. Should the sale of organs be allowed by law? If not prohibited will the purchase of an organ for oneself be morally problematic? In continuity, many arguments have been presented in favor of the authorization of the currently illegal sale of organs. Primarily, sane adults obtain the freedom to do as they wish with their own bodies, especially when not considerably detrimental to others. For that reason, when in absence of the reasons to do otherwise, people, specifically adults, should certainly be granted the permission to sell parts of their bodies as they wish. Also, by allaying the considerably sized scarcity of transplant organs, the allowance of the sale of organs, as claimed by scientists, will expectedly save countless amount of lives. Thus, because of this, organ sales may be defended as a benefaction in the salvation of lives as well as an economic improvement:
“Recent research suggests paying for organs could reduce societal health care costs long-term. An Oct. study showed that if people were able to pay $10,000 for a living kidney donation, medical costs -- such as related to dialysis treatments - would go down overall and patients would get additional quality years of life compared to the current system.” (Castillo, Michelle. "Ethical Dilemmas Surround Those Willing to Sell, Buy Kidneys on Black Market.”)
The decent route the government should take should be to permit people, even if in exchange for money, to hold or give their organs without restriction, especially at the time of death.
Thousands of lives would be saved. According to Santa Clara University’s Publications article Kidneys for Sale:
“Currently, prospects are grim for people in need of organ transplants. For every 100,00 transplant operations needed each year, only 10,000 are performed. Biomedical breakthroughs have greatly increased our capacity to perform successful transplants, increasing the demand for transplantable organs. But the supply of organs has not increased. Many people are simply reluctant to donate their bodily parts. In response to the shortage, proposals have come forth advocating the sale of non-vital human organs.” (Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Organ Selling and Transplants." Organ Selling and Transplants.)
In relation to the ongoing debate of whether organ sales should be legalized it must be recognized that benevolence best distributes by the respect and recognition given to civil liberty, and yet the deprivation of both presents itself in the case of organ sales with awfully adverse resulting
consequences. Regardless of having forceful and fine tuned laws, most areas of authority obtain the inability to control organ trafficking and provide organs to the poverty-stricken community. Several reports of the abduction and murder of children and adults to “harvest” their organs have been made. Countless amounts of people around the world live in sufferance, but not because the organs they need are unavailable but because “morality” does not allow these humans to have access to them.