Anda di halaman 1dari 2

The relationship between a medical professional ( doctor, nurse, i.

e) and a patient has


developed stronger throughout time ever since the release of Henrietta’s cells into the area of
science and the medical field / the making of HeLa factories in the year of 1951. The year being
the same year of Henrietta’s death. Not too long ago, during the bringing of HeLa cells, doctors
and medical researchers figured it was not enough to be able to find cures, vaccines and vice
versa. Thus needed more vials of HeLa cells and other patients / humans to experiment on. The
problem with this was that the patient's / humans used on the experiments did not know they
were being used at all and if they did know, they were not told the full truth. The reason they did
not know was because, science / medical researchers were afraid medical advancement would
slow down, if the ones being experimented on said no due to an informed consent about what
will occur during the experiment. Which is a central idea that Skloot unfolds as an analysis in the
text “From the immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. The central idea being, patient privacy and
informed consent NOT hindering medical advancement.

Humans have all told lies. Sometimes they could be little white lies or they can be huge,
life-damaging lies. Which is what researchers and doctors risked. They risked the life of others
in order to get results done from an experiment. The lies were patients thinking they were
getting cured for a sickness they had. Like Henrietta Lacks and her sickness of cervical cancer.
In page 164, Day ( David Lacks / Henrietta’s husband) quotes “I didn’t sign no papers...I just
told them they could do a topsy. Nothing else. Them doctors never said nothin about keeping
her alive in no tubes or growin no cells.” This quote supports the claim made that patient privacy
and informed consents does not hinder medical advancement by the quote meaning that the
doctors who were “ taking care of “ Henrietta lacks were doing more than what they were asked
for ( help cure Henrietta of her cancer). The doctors took advantage of Day’s consent to cure
her and used the consent to take tissues and cells from Henrietta. Which the text in page 2
states, that Henrietta’s cells (that were taken without permission) helped to develop “the most
important advances in medicine” and Henrietta did not even know this. All she knew was that
they were trying to “cure” her of cervical cancer.

Before patients and humans had full medical constitutional rights over what will happen
to them and their bodies, doctors and researchers took advantage at the fact that patients and
citizens did not know what can / can’t happen to them. For example, in the chapter of the “Night
Doctors” the section of the story would speak about how doctors would go in black
neighbourhoods during the night and kidnap people for experimentation. In page 165. Day,
Bobbette, and sonny had a conversation about how doctors use to snatch people “off the street”
when they were little kids unless they were “on the steps” of their house. This quote /
conversation helps to support the claim made above, by the quote meaning that informed
consent and the privacy of not only patients, but citizens as well, did not stop the medical field to
keep on advancing. Due to people being take for experiments. Where the outcome should be
results of some type to help researchers understand sicknesses and the human body more.
The claim above can be argued with, that even though patients and humans were lied to
about what will happen to them in experiments, or about getting lied to for being cured of some
type of sickness, doctors and researchers still needed an informed consent. Even if the
informed consent did not tell the full truth or only told the half truth. The informed consent gave
the illusion to patients that the doctors and researchers were injecting them with medicine.
When in reality the doctors or researchers were either taking something from them or injecting
them with another type of sickness to see what the outcome would be. In page 182, the text
quotes; “Hsu hadn’t said anything about testing the children for cancer. There was no such thing
as a “cancer test”...” This quote helps to support the counterclaim that informed consent and
patient privacy ​does ​hinder medical advancement, by the quote meaning that the doctors and
researchers needed some way to get permission from patients in order to be able to inject them
with things or to take away something from them. And if patients did not sign the informed
consent, doctors / researchers can not continue their hidden research. Thus medical
advancement is slowed down.

There are many things in the world that slow down one another. But in the medical field.
Nothing is slowed down. Informed consent and the privacy of patients can not slow down
medical advancement. For not only doctors, but researchers and volunteers from experiments
all want something out of the results. They want to prove themselves good to the world by giving
themselves up and releasing themselves of their own privacy, they want money out of the
results, or they may be just curious about things. Like illnesses. Point of this essay is, informed
consent and patient privacy does not hinder medical advancement.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai