Take the side you DIDN'T debate in class and argue that side. Reference at least one philosopher.
Resolved: The scientific community's use of Henrietta Lack's cells was morally permissible.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Meredith Aby-Keirstead's Introduction to Philosophy class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. There is an expectation by the instructor & the JHS administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at JHS apply to the blog.
Socrates
15 comments:
It was morally permissible. The people it helped over the people it hurt was tremendous and it helped so many people. The research was also very important and helped look into genes that cause and suppress cancer and other disorders. Even though the family did not agree with it, I'm sure that the family knew people or were related to people that had diseases where the cells helped research for and helped those people. The cells also helped many medical advances as well.
It was okay for scientists to take Henrietta Lack's cells. They helped with some of the most important advances in medicine including the polio vaccine, chemotherapy, cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, her cells helped develop drugs for treating herpes, leukemia and influenza. Just as Stuart Mill would view this situation, I think the ends justify the means. While it was bad that they did not ask for her permission, in the long run it has helped more people.
I think it was morally permissible because Henrietta and her family didn't suffer from this research until they knew what was going on. Also the amount of lives her cells have saved trumps the suffering that this family went through because Henrietta didn't die from this research; but without this research many others would have died. Also it helped develop some of the most important advances in medicine such as the polio vaccine. Cloning, Chemotherapy,gene mapping, and many more.
It wasn't right for scientist to take Henrietta Lack's cells. She didn't give scientist permission to take her cells and do tests on it. Her husband didn't give permission to scientists either. Her family didn't even find out about all the testings they did on them or the cells they stole from Henrietta until 30 years later. People made a lot of money out of the cells and the family didn't even get a cent out of any of it.
I think that the use of her cells is morally permissible because of the lives she saved and her legacy. Her family may have not given consent or got anything back in return but there daughter avoided oblivion. Most people die and aren't remembered except by their loved ones. In this case she died and ended up in books, on magazines, and on the internet. She may have not given permission but either way she lives on through history as one of the most important medical breakthroughs. Not only that but the end justifies the means, 1 dead, over a million saved.
If a random cancer patient had these special cells, there are likely many people with her mutation. It would be more morally correct to take someone's cells with permission than to use Henrietta Lack's cells without permission. This is because someone who gives permission is wanting their cells to be used while it is unknown if Henrietta Lacks would want her cells to use. Also, her family deserved to receive some of the money from cell sales because their relative died. Lack's relatives may need some of the money to make up for losing Lack's financial support. The relatives also might need some money to compensate for potential depression.
It was okay & justifiable for them to take lacks cells. Coming from a utilitarian perspective Mills would agree because the simple fact that millions of lives have been saved. Also, even tho their are wrong doings in this case at the end of the day no one was harmed.
This is from the con side of the Henrietta argument. From the view of categorical imperative promoted by Immanuel Kant this would be seen as unethical. The fact that the researchers took the cells from Henrietta without asking created the issue on its own. After they found out the cells were immortal they did not tell Henrietta or her family about the cells and proceeded to make profit off of them. The family of Henrietta was not told anything until 20 years after the research on the cells began. It was also unethical that they asked the family to give them samples to test them for cancer even though they were really using the cells to see if they were immortal like Henrietta's. The researchers never thought how it would feel to be the family to they did all the testing without even thinking of the family's reaction to the cells getting used. From the view of Kant this would have made it extremely unethical.
FOR:
The use of Henrietta's cells is morally permissible because they have benefited humanity in the long-run. Significant advances in science and medicine have been made thanks to these cells. While not informing Henrietta about the situation was unethical, the malpractice that unfortunately occurred doesn't invalidate the knowledge that was gained.
For it it was wrong of the scientists to take Henrietta Lack's cells without her permission. Sure the cells helped saved millions but they profited from this . Had they not made people buy her cells in order to save their lives then this actions would okay but they did . They also they didnt give her family any of the money they earn and didnt tell them until 20 years later which was wrong. Had the scientists been in Lack's family sitautuion they too wouldnt have wanted one of their own's cell being taken without permission.
It was not permissible for them to use Henrietta Lacks' cells. First of all, they didn't even ask for her consent, one of the basic principles of Kant's philosophy. Then they lied to her family about testing them for tumors when they only wanted to use them as lab rats. This is immoral to do to people, I don't think any of the people involved in taking Henrietta Lacks' cells would want this to happen to them or their families. Thus, this violates Kant's golden rule theory if they wouldn't like this same treatment. Yes it saved millions of people and further medical studies, but did it really have to go about they way it did without her consent?
I am know arguing for the use of HeLa cells. The use of HeLa cells helped advance medical technology and also saved thousands of lives. The action of them taking her selves to did not mortally wound Henrietta and also resulted in the saving of many peoples lives which to me equals out. The thought that the lives that she saved, would have been lost without the cells stolen from her, I believe, deems the actions the doctors did were morally sound. Using Mill's idea that the ends justify the means definitely supports the use of HeLa cells.
From Alex: When taking the side of something that you may not agree with can make the argument of their case and view more harder than stating your own opinion. I think that from the side of Kant that without consent there is right and wrong and that there would be some kind of consequence to what that person or person's did that made their actions wrong and that the want for the greater good is not okay as long as there is permission from those who will or would be studied. Though I am on the other side personally.
Post a Comment