When HeLa cells started to be sold, do you think Dr.Gey should have stepped in to assure that Henrietta Lacks’ family was compensated in some way? Do you think they should be compensated at all?
Dr. Gey should have looked out for the Lacks family and let them know about the cells back in 1951. The lives of Henrietta’s children would have been greatly improved had they had that money. The Lacks family deserves compensation not only because Henrietta’s cells were taken without permission, but because without them, science would be nowhere near where it is today.
Do you think the doctors who allowed patients to be involved in potentially harmful experiments were complying with their Hippocratic oath “do no harm”?
Yes and no. The first thought that comes to mind is a definite no, that the things these scientists were doing was not in mankind’s best interest at all. What most people forget is that the potentially dangerous research being done is to fix a common problem, something even bigger than the test subjects. Obviously, they should have been informed of what they were doing, but if it is for the greater good, it is technically in compliance with the Hippocratic oath. …show more content…
Why didn’t scientists consider this when creating their cell lines?
There’s usually not room for “John Moore” on a test tube, and certainly not “Henrietta Lacks”. In legal documentation, the full name should have been kept but scientists referring to their research in abbreviated terms is not a sin.
Compared with the Golde/Moore case, was what Dr.Gey did with Henrietta’s cells different because he made money from their
Dr. Gey should have looked out for the Lacks family and let them know about the cells back in 1951. The lives of Henrietta’s children would have been greatly improved had they had that money. The Lacks family deserves compensation not only because Henrietta’s cells were taken without permission, but because without them, science would be nowhere near where it is today.
Do you think the doctors who allowed patients to be involved in potentially harmful experiments were complying with their Hippocratic oath “do no harm”?
Yes and no. The first thought that comes to mind is a definite no, that the things these scientists were doing was not in mankind’s best interest at all. What most people forget is that the potentially dangerous research being done is to fix a common problem, something even bigger than the test subjects. Obviously, they should have been informed of what they were doing, but if it is for the greater good, it is technically in compliance with the Hippocratic oath. …show more content…
Why didn’t scientists consider this when creating their cell lines?
There’s usually not room for “John Moore” on a test tube, and certainly not “Henrietta Lacks”. In legal documentation, the full name should have been kept but scientists referring to their research in abbreviated terms is not a sin.
Compared with the Golde/Moore case, was what Dr.Gey did with Henrietta’s cells different because he made money from their