In Wednesday Lecture, we discussed the Theory of
Reciprocity, in which society cannot assume that members of the society have
this obligation to give back to
society. One of the most prominent examples of this concept relates the many
issues that occur in medical research.
I am a freshman in the Michigan Research Community (a
Learning Community on campus). Over the summer, we were required to read a
nonfiction piece about medical ethics—it was called “The Immortal Life ofHenrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot. This story is about a case in which an
African-American woman, Henrietta Lacks, was diagnosed with cervical cancer at
Johns Hopkins in 1950. While receiving free treatment at the University, they
also took her cancer cells to use for medical research. Not only did she not
give consent for her cells to be used in research, but also her cells turned
out to become a base for most of our vaccines today and genetic
research/knowledge. Her cells have become such a vital part of our scientific
advances. The problem with all this is that Henrietta Lacks did not consent to have her cells used for these
advances in medical research.
There are many other cases in which pharmaceutical
companies, medical researchers, and physicians face law suits because they
failed to receive the proper consent for certain procedures or research. However,
in every case, they argue that consent was not needed because they were
conducting this research for the good of the entire society. Imagine if the
researchers at Johns Hopkins did not use Henrietta’s cells…we might not
necessarily have the most common vaccines that we do today. Her cells are
actually used in nearly every lab across the nation, even for simple genetic
research. She has saved millions of lives. But her contribution was
“unethically obtained.” Oops?
As members of this society, do we have this obligation to allow for our cells to be
used in research because it may contribute to curing diseases that will help
the rest of our society? What does it
mean to be members of a society? Where do our rights and privileges
actually lie?
Looking back at our Crito reading, this concept of political
obligation is the main purpose of that dialogue. Was Socrates actually a
radical sacrifice for Athens? If so, must we view our membership in society as
more than just the protection of our rights? Must we also consider that we are
to give back nearly as much as we receive? I think this is an interesting thing
to contemplate (considering that we leave the concept of human altruism out of
this) because our political foundation, such as our constitution, does not
really specify that we are obligated to our society. The only components we
have to really keep in mind are the laws that we are not to break; our law does
not also say we must give back to our society….unless we look at the system of
taxes. But, again we consent to paying taxes. We vote on particular political
figures in order to support certain taxes, so this is a little different from
other circumstances. I am not really sure what our “obligation” is towards our society
(or if there is actually one). But I will say that, regardless of how we view
this, there is this concept that we have a “citizen duty” to our society and it
comes up in many situations that challenge our law. And I believe that this
concept is something that gives insight into our actual understanding of the political
rights that we have in the United States.
Images:
http://www.iamthenublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/the-immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr_uDnIXqiVpsOG4UWYpnLfecZhRrSK1g65VCh9EiV4Rgs-yMHuFQXuhRlvUitQjHXQ66O0Zu4ZRAGxhKHhpcgDaVcdX9MVfzQqVzVubgZoEwHwzMqLAfS61ZmkwfbI4bNzIKCvjPyWK9T/s1600/Johns_Hopkins_Medicine_Logo.jpg
Thank you for this post, it is definitely one of the more informative posts I've read. In thinking about our obligation to society, it is a tough thought to tackle. I honestly don't really think I owe society anything in particular, but that doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't give anything to society. If we are to give as much as we receive, there are a lot of people failing this obligation. This makes me realize that we take a lot of society's benefits for granted. I never thought about the fact that somebody had to give cells to produce vaccines that everyone can use. I already had the vaccines available when I was born. But looking at this from the other side, what does society owe us? In this case, they owe us a right to consent our tissues being used for research. They owe us a vote in the elections. In a society like the US, I would argue that we are owed a stable life, where we can live and be content. Not everybody receives this though, and that means that both humans and society are at fault. One cannot give consent if it is not asked for. Had they asked Henrietta, perhaps she would have allowed it, and we would be in the same place, with the same benefits, but the scales wold be even. Good post, I thought it was very interesting and engaging. Some nice food for thought!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this post, I fount myself at times agreeing and at other times, struggling to to agree. My main disagreement is that I do not at all feel like I owe society for the sake of owing society. If one feels that they owe society, I would argue that the owe it to their specific moral standard to help society, rather than owing society itself. Henrietta did not owe society her cells based on any form of a societal obligation, that is not the question. The real question here is if Henrietta upon finding out that her cells were being used for research had a right to revoke the rights to research, and I think the answer is yes. All this being said, I also feel that Henrietta has a MORAL obligation to let the research continue. Was she harmed in the process? No. The fact of the matter here is that she hadn't the slightest ideas this was even going on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The problem with the difference between her moral obligation and her political rights, is that many even argue that these "moral obligations" become her political rights--ie, that no matter what, her cells helped so many people so if she tried to revoke her rights to research, they shouldn't have let her. I don't agree with that, but a lot of people do; that's one of the reason that there an issue with this.
DeleteThis post is interesting in the way that it explores a utilitarian side to "Crito." Should we sacrifice ourselves for the greater goods? That seems to be an issue of martyr, though not in an extreme way. Your example of Henrietta is provocative in many ways. Yes, she vastly helped cancer research but her privacy was also violated. Even though she wasn't harmed, it's the idea of her privacy being violated that seems to be unethical while ethical at the same time. This then leads me to think about how organizations, such as Google and Facebook, are using are own personal information for profits. We aren't really being harmed, but the idea of someone infringing on our privacy is quite daunting, even if it is for the collective benefit of the economy somehow. Assuming all this, do you believe the idea of freedom or collective security is more beneficial? In other words, are you OK with some advertising company receiving your personal interests and age statistics so that this collective economy can benefit? The same could also be said of airport security after the 9/11 attacks where you give up your individual privacy and dignity so you can feel secure.
ReplyDeleteHannah,
ReplyDeleteVery intriguing post. Like others that have posted, I do not think that I owe to society either. Even though I don't think I owe anything to society, that does not mean that I don't give back. I do not give back as in obligation but more so for the better and for the fulfillment of giving back.
Until the late 1990's, lots of African American women were getting things done to them without consent, such as given treatments and unnecessary treatment without the acknowledgment of the actual patient. It was not just an issue with Henrietta but with the discrimination against african american women. Nowadays, 'conducting good for the better of society' isn't justified in court. It's sad to have seen situations like that happen but the acknowledgment of them will hopefully prevent actions like that from happening again.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteTremendously interesting post, I had actually never heard of Henrietta Lacks, and this example really makes me question the place of medical ethics. Obviously consent is important, but imagine if she was asked and said no. Could it be argued that the doctor (or medical community as a whole) still has obligation to advance medical technology due to the hippocratic oath? The idea of this contradiction is an interesting medical dilemma.
The entire idea of having some sort of obligation to give back to society reminds me of the book Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas, the novel's main character John Galt lives by the maxim "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." This pretty much sums up my belief system as it pertains to this obligation. It is not that I don't believe in giving to my community, in fact I am a great believer of charity and altruism, but I don't see this as an obligation of individuals and should be done out of will and selflessness, not obligation.
Great post and discussion.
Brad Fingeroot
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHannah,
ReplyDeleteI really did learn a lot from your post. I think this post gives to the question of sacrificing self for the good of all, and the personal and societal implications of that decision. I think that in the case of Henrietta Lacks, there is no loser in this situation so it's not necessarily a sacrifice of self. Just like Mill said you should be able to do things to harm yourself if it doesn’t hurt others, I think this idea is also valid in its reciprocal form, otherwise known as the golden rule.
However, the conversation about the rights of medical companies to do research in the name of society's benefit is kind of nerve-racking. Obviously the discovery of vaccines and cures for diseases is a great bi-product of the Lacks situation, but it does seem kind of contradictory that what is in the "benefit of society" can be decided in a courtroom.
Great Post