preview

Summary: The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks

Decent Essays

I believe sacrificing the rights and welfare of an individual is ethical if it benefits the greater good, because so many people were saved from diseases with the use of HeLa cells. The book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot shows the ethical dilemma of having informed consent in human experimentation. Skloot’s tone clearly shows her critical attitude towards the doctors, portraying their actions as unethical. Other sources, such as Scientific American Article, say that the fact that so many people today are healthy because of HeLa cells, the situation is ethical. I believe that, overall, the idea of sacrificing the rights of one is ethical in the sense that the greater good is benefited. In chapter 3 of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Skloot talks about a cervical cancer researcher named Richard TeLinde. She …show more content…

For instance, Skloot explains the actions of the scientist, Chester Southam. This is one of the reasons most people see this topic as unethical. “Vulnerable population unable to give informed consent” (pg. 129). Skloot includes this thought process of Southam to show his immoral behavior. “Southam wanted to see how healthy people reacted to the injections, for comparison’s sake” (pg 128). The use of comparison’s sake shows that Southam is the problem in this situation, not the motive for saving millions of lives. Skloot even goes so far as to compare him to what the Nazi’s did to the Jews in WWII. This is important because the examples of what the Nazi’s did were examples of experiments that weren’t necessary for the greater good. The point is, that TeLinde and Gey wanted to help people and made an immoral sacrifice with Henrietta’s life to help the world for eternity. Southam, like the Nazi’s, just wanted to see what he could do for the sake of it, and justify his actions by saying it was for the greater good. Two different stances that determine ethical and unethical

Get Access