August 2011 Archives

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot, is a story about three different controversial journeys. It is about scientists on a journey to discover. The author is on a journey to learn and spread the story of a woman named Henrietta Lacks, whose cells were taken and used for research. And perhaps the most touching journey of them is of Deborah, Henrietta's daughter, who just wants to know what kind of person her mother was. Rebecca wrote using these three perspectives. She tells interchanging tales of the history of cell research and Deborah's discoveries, all woven together by the author's own perspective, and all of these journeys are centered around Henrietta's cells, which lived on even after she died.

 

Rebecca's writing begs many questions, most of which could be discussed for hours at a time. Some examples of these questions are: Does Henrietta's spirit live in these cells? Was it ethical for the doctors and scientists to use her cells without her consent? Does her family deserve part of the money that has been made off of them? Each reader will inquire about different topics and from different perspectives. But no matter how each reader thinks, the important thing is that it brings them all together. Scientists and Theologians are drawn together into discussion, and what could be better? What is thought of as two ends of the earth are drawn together as they meet on the other side. The earth, after all, is a sphere, so two things going in the opposite direction are bound to meet. 

 

And so I myself must also search for answers to these questions. So first off, I don't believe that her spirit still lives in her cells. Technically, they are no longer the cells that came from her - they are replicas. That being said, I also believe that as soon as her tissues were removed, they were no longer a part of her. In Mark 9:47, the writer says, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell," (ESV). The tearing out of the eye to purify oneself implies that once the eye leaves the body, it is no longer a part of the rest of the body. So I can only draw the conclusion that it is the same case with her cervix tissues. As far as ethics go, I am still not sure where I stand, but I think for the most part, I would say that the end justifies the means. A lot of people have benefitted from vaccines that were able to be created through research with her cells. At the same time, Henrietta wasn't actually slighted by the removal of her cervix tissues - in fact, she didn't even notice. The only argument about ethics that should really be made is whether she should have been able to make money off of it. Had she known that her cells would be worth money to researchers, she could have sold them. That being said, the original intentions of George Gey, who first took the cells from her, were not to make money, but to do research. He never made a profit - he just shared the cells with his fellow scientists, who then decided to sell them. And so that being said, I think it's also important to keep in mind that all of the work that has been done and all of the benefits that have come about have been because of the scientists - not necessarily because of Henrietta. She was in the right place at the right time, but none of her actions have at all contributed to the research that has been done. And so in that way, I don't believe that she or her family deserves any type of payment.

 

It is a very controversial and slippery slope to take an adventure down, but we, too, as readers can begin journeys of our very own - inspired by this book.

 

Clearly, the grief of the Lacks family is expounded upon in the book, so there's no reason for me to reiterate it. Instead, I just want to raise a few points. 

The first thing is that they are continually saying about how "Henrietta has contributed so much to science," and while the cells did come from Henrietta, the contribution really had nothing to do with anything she did. We all know that Henrietta didn't give consent for her cells to be used for research, which is something her family loves to complain about, and while their complaints may be valid, it can also be used against them. If Henrietta didn't give consent, that means that she played no conscious role in this critical research. She's not actually responsible for anything that was achieved. The only thing she did was be in the right place at the right time. 

Secondly, the family has a sense of entitlement when it comes to the money that has been made off of Henrietta's cells. Now, personally if I were playing the role of one of the scientists and I had made a bunch of money off of this, I would give them money, or at least health care, because inevitably they are involved and they are hurting. However, that doesn't mean that they are entitled to anything. They haven't earned any of that money through hard work - all they did was be related to someone that the scientists made useful. If it wasn't for the scientists, Henrietta's cells would have just ended up as cancerous cervix cells six feet under, rotting and going to waste. They are not worth something because of anything that Henrietta or her family did, they are valuable because of the hard and consistent work of George Gey, whose original intention was to discover - not to make money. In short, it is only right to claim you deserve something if you work for it. 

Lastly, this family is so angry and embittered toward white scientists because of the stories that they've heard. Granted, these stories are true, and it has affected them in that it makes them afraid of their own local hospital, Hopkins. But on the other hand, if you take a look at some of the most difficult offenses that they have endured, you'll find that they come from within their own community. For example, Ethel abused Henrietta's children after her death, or Deborah's cousin Galen would sexually abuse her. All of these things are terrible, and they are not inflicted by any white scientists, and yet it seems as though these scientists are blamed for all of their troubles. 

Anyhow, my hope is that this doesn't come across as insensitive - I don't believe that these things entirely let the scientists off the hook. There are clearly things that they have done unethically, such as: not allowing the Lacks family a decent explanation, making promises to the family that they didn't keep, and treating Henrietta's cancer haphazardly (although it's not like she was paying for it. What else can be expected from free health care?), etc. There are so many opinions that this book provokes and it was a really interesting read.