Case Study Jesse Gelsinger

Research ethics were being debated in US courts so that they could sanctioned in the 1950s. Due to a court case never being made over the issue of Henrietta’s cells being researched on, “it would be decades before anyone thought to ask whether informed consent should apply in cases like [her’s], where scientists conduct research on tissues no longer attached to a person’s body” (Skloot 132). Skloot uses the fact that it was “decades” later till “anyone thought to ask” about tissues detached from the body. Since no one spoke up on this issue there were no court cases like Henrietta’s so researching on her cells was tolerated during that time period. Concurrently in a civil court case, “a patient named Martin Salgo...went under anesthesia for what he thought was a routine procedure and woke up permanently paralyzed from the waist down. The doctor hadn’t told him the procedure carried any risks at all. The judge ruled against the doctor saying… there needed to be ‘full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent’ “ (Skloot 132). Skloot employs a specific example of a judge ruling in favor of informed consent with all the risks explained, in order for the reader to question whether the same should apply for conditions like Henrietta’s. Similar to Henrietta’s case, Salgo’s doctor informed him that there were not “any risks” for the medical operation resulting in Salgo being “permanently paralyzed.” Salgo is lied which causes major medical problems that he cannot recover from. As a result, the judge believes that there needs to be “full disclosure of facts” which means the patient must know everything about the medical procedure and any of the risks. Although Henrietta’s cells were no longer a part of her body, she was never informed about

As research and technology progress forward in time, the ethical considerations that must be taken along with, not only method of study but social ramifications continues to grow exponentially. At the time when cells were taken unknowingly from Mrs. Lacks, there were not strict regulatory guidelines as to how consent should be required along with many other now ill-practice methods of medicine seen at the time. Despite agreeing that the

However, the consent of subjects is enforced by the respect for the individuals used in research and the bioethicists that police peer-reviewed articles. A small hope has sprung forth from possible enforceable regulations that would require permission for the use of all human blood and tissue used in research. This has been proposed by the federal government. Sadly, neither the current standing nor the possible future of required consent is very well known in the general population. The lack of concern when it comes to these issues by the general population can be attributed to a simple problem, lack of knowledge.

The example of Paul Gelsinger from Ricki Lewis’ The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It (2012) shows how a parent’s desire to help a sick child can be misguided, even though their intentions are good. Situations like Paul Gelsinger’s are important to reference when discussing human research ethics because it illustrates how ethics of care can cloud rationale or hinder thorough investigation of treatment for children. Paul’s son, Jesse Gelsinger, was a teenager who suffered from a genetic disorder called Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency also known as OTC deficiency. The disease affects the liver; individuals cannot metabolize ammonia, leading to elevated levels of the compound in the blood which can harm nervous tissue in

When the ethics of the research being done are heavily violated,

In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will

The Applewhites have changed throughout the book, but these three have had the greatest change. Jake Semple started off as a black-hearted thirteen year old who got expelled from every school he has been in. He even started a fire in one! The last school he could enroll in was the Applewhite’s Creative Academy, if he got kicked out of this school he would be sent to Juvenile Detention. When Jake was sent to live with the Applewhites he thought they were a very unusual family. But after a while he grew used to their strange ways and even started to like them. When Jake took part in the Applewhite’s play he didn’t want to be known as a wrongdoer, he wanted to be known as an actor. Throughout the book Jake changed from a cold-hearted lawbreaker

The example of unethical or questionable science behavior I have decided to discuss involves informed consent. An article written in the Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research describes informed consent as the process by which individuals are advised of the different facets of research, including risks, that they will be participating in that allows them to make a voluntary and informed decision as to their willingness to engage in the procedure.

Additionally human medical research studies often targeted those who came to public teaching institutions desperately seeking free medical treatment and who generally looked up to doctors and experimenters as experts in the field who were there to help them. While this motivation may seem logical, it is often faulty as many human medical research studies throughout history demonstrate that the motivation of medical researches is often not the care of those currently suffering from a particular condition but the future returns on the cures or medical treatments that may be discovered during the study (McKie). As with many such unethical studies, the participants often do not give consent and are not informed of known dangers to the procedure, medications or lack of treatment. The use of individuals who are poor, uneducated, and lack medical insurance in combination with prestigious university research institutions and the white coated, well-educated researchers motivated by discoveries of cures on the scientific frontier results in abuses of individuals.

The research ethics, especially with the human subjects, is a very complex topic, and the completion of the certification opened my eyes on many aspects of research process. I learned how important it is to fully understand the research purpose and the methodology especially when selecting participants. I learned which populations are considered vulnerable, how to balance risk and potential benefits of research, and the importance of obtaining an informed, voluntary consent. I learned how important it is for researchers to ensure subjects confidentiality and privacy. Hardicre (2014) said that the research would be impossible without volunteers, and that the researchers “must act as patient advocates to ensure that every stage of the research

Jona’s definition of identification is that “the most educated and motivated members of society should be the candidates for research, and their agreement must be autonomous and informed to be valid.” He believes that people who are being experimented on should have a better understanding of what exactly is being done as well as all the details behind it. Patients should not be the guinea pigs in these experiments “the most highly motivated, highly educated, and the least captive members of the society” should be the ones who are being experimented on. With any case this is only justifiable if the experiment relates to the disease. The belmont report states that there are three core principles identified, respect for persons, beneficence,

There are many ethical issues in the healthcare field. These issues range from insurance coverage, senior care, childhood immunizations, beneficence, abortion, medicinal marijuana, honesty and medical research (Fritzsche, D., 2004). Today we will discuss the ethical concerns in only one aspect of heath care and that topic is research (Benatar, S., 2000). Medical research is necessary in order to make strides in health care, introduce new medications, to discover new symptoms and disorders and to test new treatment options for current medical problems. Students of medicine, universities and pharmaceutical companies conduct this research primarily. Much of this research is time consuming and costly, therefore obtaining funding is not

With the numerous legal, ethical and moral issues that were highlighted in Henrietta Lacks case, two major ones to note: 1) the Lacks never specifically consented to providing samples of Henrietta’s cervical tissue for research, and 2) Johns Hopkins University releasing Henrietta’s name and medical records to third parties without her or her family’s

Movies have failed miserably at enlightening the public about tarantulas. Case in point: a villain in the first James Bond movie (Dr. No) puts a tarantula in our hero's bed. As Bond wakes to see the stocky black spider crawling on his shoulder he appears to be sweating heavily—presumably because this creature could kill him.

In 1787, delegates from across the country traveled to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to attend the Constitutional Convention. Federalist wanted a strong central government and antifederalist wanted more powerful state governments. Nevertheless, delegates from all of the states traveled to the Constitutional Convention and drafted the United States Constitution. Later, all delegates’ from the states ratified the U.S. Constitution. Under Article I, II, and III of the U. S. Constitution established the legislative branch of government, executive branch of government, and a judicial branch of government (History of the Federal Judiciary. n.d.). The President of the United States heads the executive branch as the head of state and Commander-in-Chief