Theme of Bioethics in Ball and Wolfe's (2017) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Theme of Bioethics in Ball and Wolfe’s (2017) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
Name
University
Theme of Bioethics in Ball and Wolfe’s (2017) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
For three decades, scientists had been looking for human cells that could be successfully multiplied outside the human body and much of their efforts failed until 1951, when doctors in the Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore collected a cancerous tissue sample from a colored woman, Henrietta Lacks, without her consent. Her tissue sample is significant as it allowed scientists to conduct tests on human cells repeatedly without running out of stock, thereby cutting experimentation costs and enhancing the validity of test results as they were done on human cells instead of animal counterparts. Since then, the samples had been distributed for free all over the world, although some pharmaceutical companies made millions out of the products developed from testing them on Lacks’ cells. To avoid potential legal problems, the Hopkins administration decided to change Henrietta’s name to Helen Lane and called her cells, HeLa. Although HeLa has been used to advance studies in cancer, polio, influence, AIDs, and other diseases, Lacks never got the proper credit or compensation. After learning about Lacks in school and pursuing a journalistic career, Rebecca Skloot investigated the life of Lacks and sought out her children. She usually interviewed Deborah Lacks, Henrietta Lacks' daughter, who was the most interested in learning more about her mother and angriest at the injustice her mother experienced only because she was black and poor. Skloot published The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks in 2010, which was produced as a TV film in 2017 by Ball and Wolfe (2017). The main theme of the text is bioethics and its intersection with race and social class; moreover, as a non-fiction depiction of society, it exposes the social and economic implications of biobanking and bioslavery.
Before going over the theme of the film, it is important to know the background of bioethics and its main issues that are related to the movie. Bioethics refers to the ethics of medical and biological research. Due to the advent of stem cell research and cloning, bioethics is now at the forefront of both scientific inquiry and ethical debates. In reality though, despite advancements in cell research, several issues continue to hound biomedical studies. First is the issue of biobanking, or the preservation of human substances in banks, which is similar to what doctors and scientists did with HeLa. Up to now, uncertainty remains on the true ownership of these samples and the kind of consent that should be legally sufficient in protecting the rights of the owners (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, p. 1). In 2017, a revision of the U.S. Common Rule “explicitly endorses the use of broad consent in specific situations,” however, this does not address concerns of fairness and appropriateness (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, p. 1). Second, biobanking underlines the issue of right to control the research samples, benefits from research, and/or financial compensation for their contribution (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, p. 3). Third, people are concerned about the commercialization of human substances and its implication on the objectification of human life (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, p. 3). Finally, biobanking emphasizes issues of trust in the healthcare industry, privacy, and discrimination, particularly when genetic materials can yield intimate information about one’s diseases as well as genetic and psychological risks, which can impact access to education, employment, insurance, and housing opportunities (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, pp. 3-4). These biobanking issues are all exhibited in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
The film indicates the predominant theme of bioethics, starting with the legal boundaries of biobanking and the responsibility of researchers to inform the owners and/or their families. The U.S. Common Rule is vague on the extent of consent apart from stating that researchers should obtain broad consent from the owners of biological substances before conducting any kind of study on the latter (Caulfield & Murdoch, 2017, p. 1). Doctors in the Johns Hopkins Medical Center failed to extend the same right to consent to Henrietta Lacks. Instead of asking her permission first before collecting tissue samples, they took it as if they owned it and never thought about patient autonomy and the injustice of disregarding her right. Understandably, the family members of Henrietta Lacks are angry at the medical industry. Their mother was poor and in so much pain from cancer, yet they did not even bother to ask her if she wanted her cells to be used for experimentation. Likewise, Deborah is mad that nobody even knows about her mother and her contributions to science and technology because she was never acknowledged as the true owner of HeLa cells. Instead, a white name replaced her black name, an immoral practice of hiding the truth from the public. Also, researchers have the responsibility to tell Henrietta Lacks about her cells and ask for consent. Since they did not, current researchers and doctors who use HeLa must then seek the permission of Lacks, particularly if her body is considered as property that is passed on to her heirs, her husband and their children, as well as grandchildren. Only Henrietta died, not her family. They should have the right to know what happened to their mother’s cells and their consent may even be necessary for continued use of HeLa.
The second aspect of the theme is the issue of right to control the research samples, benefits from research, and/or financial recompense for their contribution. Henrietta Lacks had the right to control how her samples should be used. Her body is her property only, and not the public’s. Any research that would go beyond what she agreed to would require additional consent unless she explicitly gave blanket consent to goals that are as noble as advancing medicine and saving lives. Moreover, Henrietta Lacks has the right to benefit from the research, starting with getting proper credit in history, including medical history. Helen Lane is a lie, and the medical industry should accurately recognize Henrietta Lacks and correct their gross omission of her identity in their history books. They should issue public announcements about Henrietta Lacks and revise books that have Helen Lane’s name in it. The true owner of HeLa is only Henrietta Lacks. Furthermore, Henrietta Lacks has the right to compensation. Barbara Lacks’ indignation over the lack of just damages is justified. As she said in the film, pharmaceutical firms have made millions out of using HeLa, yet Lacks’ family, who have various illnesses, have not made a penny out of their mother’s own cells (Ball & Wolfe, 2017). They are not asking for much but the right compensation that was denied to their mother as well as perhaps control over the use of HeLa and getting compensated for these additional uses too. Biobanking should help mankind but if it is making some companies rich, then it is only fitting that Lacks’ family...