Pervading the story of Henrietta Lacks and her “immortal cells” was the idea that doctors should be required to obtain informed consent from their patients before conducting any extensive research that could affect the patient. Aside from the HeLa case itself, another situation mentioned in the book was Mo versus Golde, a case where a doctor- David Golde- patented and profited off of the cells of one of his patients- John Moore. Doctor David Golde should have been prosecuted for taking and profiting off of John Moore’s cells without his informed consent. The main and most important reason that John Moore should have received some sort of compensation through the suing of David Golde is that informed consent- keyword: “informed”- was legally
…show more content…
In 1962, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris amendments; these laws placed restrictions on drug testing and also put in place a requirement for informed consent (Sparks). However, these laws were quite obviously ignored; if they had been more strongly enforced this case would have been over before it was started. Because of this, doctors like Golde were able to do things like this for years without informing their patients of their intentions. In order to take control of and revise this issue, stronger policies were made in 1980. One statement, released by the Committee of Ethics, is known as “Ethical Considerations Associated With Informed Consent:” this statement depicts the importance of patients’ autonomy and the control they have over their own bodies (ACOG). Both the amendments and this statement were issued and approved prior to Moore taking Golde to court, so the question remains: why was Golde not prosecuted? The answer to this lies on page 205 of “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” on which Skloot wrote, “When tissues are removed from your body, with or without your consent, any claim you might have had to owning them vanishes… you abandon them as waste, and anyone can take your garbage and sell it.” This is what the court of California sad to Moore when,
In 1962, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris amendments; these laws placed restrictions on drug testing and also put in place a requirement for informed consent (Sparks). However, these laws were quite obviously ignored; if they had been more strongly enforced this case would have been over before it was started. Because of this, doctors like Golde were able to do things like this for years without informing their patients of their intentions. In order to take control of and revise this issue, stronger policies were made in 1980. One statement, released by the Committee of Ethics, is known as “Ethical Considerations Associated With Informed Consent:” this statement depicts the importance of patients’ autonomy and the control they have over their own bodies (ACOG). Both the amendments and this statement were issued and approved prior to Moore taking Golde to court, so the question remains: why was Golde not prosecuted? The answer to this lies on page 205 of “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” on which Skloot wrote, “When tissues are removed from your body, with or without your consent, any claim you might have had to owning them vanishes… you abandon them as waste, and anyone can take your garbage and sell it.” This is what the court of California sad to Moore when,