The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
This entire story was written because of Henrietta Lacks' life. Lacks, who lived during the early 1900's, was diagnosed and later died of cervical cancer. While being treated at Johns Hopkins, doctors took cells of her cervix and gave them to Dr. Otto Gey. The cells continued to survive and multiply in labs (unlike previous cells) and scientists finally were able to perform experiments which were able to create vaccinations which saved lives. These became known as HeLa cells, and were used for years without Henrietta or her family's knowledge after she died. Skloot later interviews them after many difficult attempts to question the relatives of Henrietta, and they are extremely resentful because of how doctors have taken advantage of them with limited information on the cells. Skloot presents both the medical advances and the great strides that have been taken in medical fields because of HeLa cells and juxtaposes them with the emotional experience of Henrietta's family. The medical information is mostly logical, but a reader sees a very relatable and emotional side of the cells when they read about her family's pain. Skloot did this in order to not take a side on the issue of whether or not cells should be obtained without consent, but instead she presents both sides of the argument. Overall, I think that her purpose was to express how positive cell research can be for patients only if consent is given to obtain them. I believe this is her purpose because she states multiple times that it would have been very simple to ask Henrietta or another patient with her cancer for some of cells instead of taking them and then insulting her and her family.
So, was her cells used as a cure for cancer? If so, were the vaccinations able to cure cervical cancer? Could it have cured Henrietta Lack's cancer? If the vaccination was created, was it created after she died? Overall, it looks like a really interesting book, and similar to the stem cell research controversy, thought not with the moral consent, but the actual consent of the family. Would they see any reason perhaps to potentially deny the scientists the cure that could create a vaccination of this disease, if it could relieve the other families that are stricken with a family member that could be saved with the vaccine? Sorry, all of my comments are really questions, but just some things I was wondering about when i read your post.
ReplyDelete