Human Tissue Censorship
The collection and use of human tissue samples, from the deceased or living, is a practice doctors and surgeons perform to be able to undergo research on diseases, cancers, and the functionality of tissues in the human body. While there are many issues surrounding the use of human cells and tissues in scientific research, the main problem pertains to morality and subsequently ownership and consent. Laws today state that patients must give consent to donate tissue samples to doctors for this procedure because while living, a person has ownership over their body and all that is inside it. When dead however, it is neatly illustrated that there is no legal owner of a dead human body or its parts. I believe people should be given legal ownership
…show more content…
to their tissues while they are living and given a choice to partake in further research after death. Legal ownership of tissues is a taxing topic full of court cases, disputes, and implications. Nevertheless having ownership of one's own tissue samples seems most ethical in today's society. If people agreed that everyone had the right to their own body and the materials inside it, it would be more assuring that doctors would then do what's best for the patient instead of seeming like they only were in it for the success it could bring.
Being that blood samples and other excised human tissues have an afterlife, when scientists take tissue samples after a person has died, it's much like those scientists are taking a part of that person nonetheless. As the New York Times writes in the article ‘Taking the Least of You’, “Slavin was one of the first people in history to decide that... he would maintain complete control over any blood and tissues removed from his body... He would determine who used them for research and who made money from them.” This example highlights the strong sense of ownership that is natural for people and the morality that should be rule in the field of science and its research involving humans. Making profit from research of a person's tissue without their knowledge is a form of theft. If people have ownership of their bodies while they are living, those people, or chosen relatives, should also have ownership over the tissues in their bodies that continue to live after death. In the article, ‘Immortal Cells, …show more content…
Enduring Issues’ it is said,”The public harbors a deeply rooted mistrust of medical research. They do not trust physicians and scientists to be honest with them. They fear that the privacy of their medical records will not be respected. They believe that someone somewhere is making a lot of money off of drugs and biological products that were developed using pieces of tissue from people who now are entitled to a piece of the profits.” This exemplifies the reality and fate scientists have made for themselves in using people's tissues to discover news breaking cures and findings without crediting those people or the families that the tissues came from. From the many discoveries and breakthroughs tissue samples have made, the people that the tissues came from should start gaining recognition and some of the profits that their donation helped create. Since there are no legal owners of a dead human body or body parts, damage or theft cannot be claimed or handled in the same way that someone owns a car that's been hit.
Laws concerning tissue samples not only lead to controversy due to discoveries from human tissues, but also harm families by exploiting DNA and continuing to not include them in the success for the contribution to the research and discoveries in the science field. One of the most well known cases of this incident is HeLa, exploited in the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” written by Rebecca Skloot. HeLa, the immortal cells which were taken without consent from Henrietta Lacks, a poor black woman who died from cervical cancer, were a major discovery to science in the 1900’s. It wasn't until more than 20 years after the death of Henrietta Lacks that her family learned of this ‘immortality’ and the multimillion dollar industry made from the cells where the family never saw any of the profits. This exposes doctrine and science as unjust as it exploits the weak and the poor and takes advantage of patients. If laws would allow people to take ownership of the things in their bodies, people might be more willing to help science progress with the use of human tissue samples, especially if people were granted some of the money made from the discoveries from their bodies. A company involved in the study of BRCA genes demonstrated this ignorance by creating patents on the genes. In the article ‘Can the Human
Blueprint Have Owners?’ written by the New York Times, it is stated that “The company's database contains information about the hundreds of possible BRCA mutations that cause disease… But is unavailable to (anyone) outside the company” This is unethical due to the fact that greed won over morality. Ownership of samples by scientists is unacceptable because this instance displays the reduction of understanding of harmful alterations and causes detriment to the development of diagnostics. If the person that the tissue came from was the only person allowed to decide what to do with it, dangerous information and cures could be shared with professionals for a portion of the profit. Without legal ownership of one's own tissues the world will continue to remain in the dark about medical diseases and potential harm because scientist and doctors decide to use them for their own benefits instead of benefiting their patients. Human tissues are a valuable necessity to today's studies and research and without the cooperation between doctors and patients, people will continue to be cheated out of the discoveries to come. The way doctors and scientists execute tests and studies on human tissue samples in scientific research is unethical, deceiving, and corrupt. The issues of ownership and consent are harming patient trust to medical professionals, patient privacy, and the potentiality of worldwide cures and scientific discoveries. People should be granted ownership over their own tissues to prevent these issues and start gaining recognition for their contribution to the breakthroughs and discoveries scientists make from human tissue samples. With an agreement that people had ownership over their own tissues, the science field would have less stress and laws regarding the problems with using human tissues, allowing a better chance to advance in scientific research.
to their tissues while they are living and given a choice to partake in further research after death. Legal ownership of tissues is a taxing topic full of court cases, disputes, and implications. Nevertheless having ownership of one's own tissue samples seems most ethical in today's society. If people agreed that everyone had the right to their own body and the materials inside it, it would be more assuring that doctors would then do what's best for the patient instead of seeming like they only were in it for the success it could bring.
Being that blood samples and other excised human tissues have an afterlife, when scientists take tissue samples after a person has died, it's much like those scientists are taking a part of that person nonetheless. As the New York Times writes in the article ‘Taking the Least of You’, “Slavin was one of the first people in history to decide that... he would maintain complete control over any blood and tissues removed from his body... He would determine who used them for research and who made money from them.” This example highlights the strong sense of ownership that is natural for people and the morality that should be rule in the field of science and its research involving humans. Making profit from research of a person's tissue without their knowledge is a form of theft. If people have ownership of their bodies while they are living, those people, or chosen relatives, should also have ownership over the tissues in their bodies that continue to live after death. In the article, ‘Immortal Cells, …show more content…
Enduring Issues’ it is said,”The public harbors a deeply rooted mistrust of medical research. They do not trust physicians and scientists to be honest with them. They fear that the privacy of their medical records will not be respected. They believe that someone somewhere is making a lot of money off of drugs and biological products that were developed using pieces of tissue from people who now are entitled to a piece of the profits.” This exemplifies the reality and fate scientists have made for themselves in using people's tissues to discover news breaking cures and findings without crediting those people or the families that the tissues came from. From the many discoveries and breakthroughs tissue samples have made, the people that the tissues came from should start gaining recognition and some of the profits that their donation helped create. Since there are no legal owners of a dead human body or body parts, damage or theft cannot be claimed or handled in the same way that someone owns a car that's been hit.
Laws concerning tissue samples not only lead to controversy due to discoveries from human tissues, but also harm families by exploiting DNA and continuing to not include them in the success for the contribution to the research and discoveries in the science field. One of the most well known cases of this incident is HeLa, exploited in the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” written by Rebecca Skloot. HeLa, the immortal cells which were taken without consent from Henrietta Lacks, a poor black woman who died from cervical cancer, were a major discovery to science in the 1900’s. It wasn't until more than 20 years after the death of Henrietta Lacks that her family learned of this ‘immortality’ and the multimillion dollar industry made from the cells where the family never saw any of the profits. This exposes doctrine and science as unjust as it exploits the weak and the poor and takes advantage of patients. If laws would allow people to take ownership of the things in their bodies, people might be more willing to help science progress with the use of human tissue samples, especially if people were granted some of the money made from the discoveries from their bodies. A company involved in the study of BRCA genes demonstrated this ignorance by creating patents on the genes. In the article ‘Can the Human
Blueprint Have Owners?’ written by the New York Times, it is stated that “The company's database contains information about the hundreds of possible BRCA mutations that cause disease… But is unavailable to (anyone) outside the company” This is unethical due to the fact that greed won over morality. Ownership of samples by scientists is unacceptable because this instance displays the reduction of understanding of harmful alterations and causes detriment to the development of diagnostics. If the person that the tissue came from was the only person allowed to decide what to do with it, dangerous information and cures could be shared with professionals for a portion of the profit. Without legal ownership of one's own tissues the world will continue to remain in the dark about medical diseases and potential harm because scientist and doctors decide to use them for their own benefits instead of benefiting their patients. Human tissues are a valuable necessity to today's studies and research and without the cooperation between doctors and patients, people will continue to be cheated out of the discoveries to come. The way doctors and scientists execute tests and studies on human tissue samples in scientific research is unethical, deceiving, and corrupt. The issues of ownership and consent are harming patient trust to medical professionals, patient privacy, and the potentiality of worldwide cures and scientific discoveries. People should be granted ownership over their own tissues to prevent these issues and start gaining recognition for their contribution to the breakthroughs and discoveries scientists make from human tissue samples. With an agreement that people had ownership over their own tissues, the science field would have less stress and laws regarding the problems with using human tissues, allowing a better chance to advance in scientific research.