HeLa Cells, Part 3: Consent v/s Greater Good
Going
back to the beginning, remember how HeLa cells were obtained without patient consent, a standard
practice of that time? Rebecca Skloot’s The
Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks explores the ethics of using cells/tissues
for research.
Take
the case of Ted Slavin. A hemophiliac born in the 1950’s, he had undergone
multiple blood confusions. And as was the case then, much of those transfusions
hadn’t been checked for diseases. Thus, he’d been exposed to the Hepatitis B
virus again and again. And in response, his body was “producing something
extremely valuable”: antibodies to Hepatitis B. Slavin contacted labs and pharma companies to ask if “they wanted
to buy his antibodies”:
“They said yes in
droves… Slavin was only the first of many who have since turned their bodies
into businesses.”
Henrietta
Lacks, the woman from whom the HeLa cells came, on the other hand, didn’t even
know her cells were taken for research. We can’t right historical wrongs, but
what should be the policy today on such matters?
Many
argue against the permission for the Slavin approach. Why? It would “create
chaos for researchers”. Having to pay for every such body cell/tissue would
sound “the death knell” for a lot of research. Wouldn’t patients “block the
progress of science by holding out for excessive profits, even with cells that
weren’t worth millions”?
On the
other hand, there’s the feeling of being cheated, and not just financially but
emotionally. As one of Lacks’ surviving relatives said about the HeLa bomb:
“Her cells caused
millions of dollars in damage. Seems like a bit of poetic justice, doesn’t it?”
So
which is the right stance here? Should the greater good and cure that could
come via research take priority over the consent issue even if the money goes to the pharma companies?
“How you should
feel about all this isn’t obvious. It’s not as if scientists are stealing your
arm or some vital organ. They’re using tissue scraps you parted with
voluntarily. Still, that often involves someone taking part of you. And people
often have a strong sense of ownership when it comes to their own bodies.”
And so
Skloot suggests that perhaps we accept that we live in a world where healthcare
is a commercial business and move onto the next question instead:
“Without
commercialization, companies wouldn’t make the drugs and diagnostic tests so
many of us depend on. The question is how we deal with this commercialization –
whether scientists should be required to tell people their tissues may be used
for profit, and where the people who donate those raw materials fit into the
marketplace.”
Comments
Post a Comment