The Tissue Issue
When it comes to the topic of patient consent on the removal of body tissue, most of us readily agree that consent must be granted before anything is removed from the body. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not the patient is aware the tissue removal is happening. Whereas some are convinced that at times making the patient unaware of the removal is adequate, others maintain that everything happening in a medical procedure should be known or approved by the patient.
In early 1951, Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman under went treatment to remove cervical cancer cells. After the cells had been removed, Lacks and her family did not know that some cancerous and non cancerous cells were sent out to be tested. Lacks' cancerous cells were then cultured and turned into the first immortal life. On October 4, 1951, Henrietta Lacks passed away not knowing about or reaping any benefits from the super cells that had been taken from her body. Years later, Lacks' family was still unaware of the medical significance of Henrietta's cells, no profit was received was received from them (Watson). Henrietta Lacks story is just one example of tissue use without consent. Now a days, unauthorized tissue use is a common occurrence in the medical world. Americans tend to believe that the medical consent oppurtunity is always granted to patients. However, is consent actually granted? Common sense seems to dictate that while a patient is under the effect of anesthetics, doctors can do anything they want regarding tissues. Many assume that certain boundaries will not be crossed; however, profit can be derived from these tissues, profit that the patient, most likely, will never see, or perhaps even know about (Haile). According to doctors, with informed consent or not, tissue donors do not have commercial rights. Is it up to patients to decide if their tissues can be removed or not? If a patient is in a harmful situation sometimes the physician has no other choice but to remove the tissue. Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that tissue is only removed when the patient is aware of the removal and clear consent has been given, because in the end, the tissue belongs to no one but the patient. Whereas some are convinced that all doctors verify their patients and make sure that consent is granted, others maintain that doctors do what they want, when they want, and gain profit from doing so. In the court case Moore v. …show more content…
Regents of the University of California, the material trying to be resolved was based on the property rights of body parts. John Moore, a patient diagnosed with hairy-cell leukemia, received care from the UCLA Medical Center in 1976. Moore in fact signed written consent for the removal of his spleen and any severed tissue. What doctor David Golde forgot to mention was the possibly of financial benefit from Moore's bodily tissues. Although written consent was given for removal, the consent did not cover doctor Golde receiving benefits from Moore's property. So in fact, all of Moore's consent was not granted (Evans). The court decided that Moore no longer had any rights to the tissues used for monetary value. Times have changed from Henrietta Lacks experience
When it comes to the topic of patient consent on the removal of body tissue, most of us readily agree that consent must be granted before anything is removed from the body. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not the patient is aware the tissue removal is happening. Whereas some are convinced that at times making the patient unaware of the removal is adequate, others maintain that everything happening in a medical procedure should be known or approved by the patient.
In early 1951, Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman under went treatment to remove cervical cancer cells. After the cells had been removed, Lacks and her family did not know that some cancerous and non cancerous cells were sent out to be tested. Lacks' cancerous cells were then cultured and turned into the first immortal life. On October 4, 1951, Henrietta Lacks passed away not knowing about or reaping any benefits from the super cells that had been taken from her body. Years later, Lacks' family was still unaware of the medical significance of Henrietta's cells, no profit was received was received from them (Watson). Henrietta Lacks story is just one example of tissue use without consent. Now a days, unauthorized tissue use is a common occurrence in the medical world. Americans tend to believe that the medical consent oppurtunity is always granted to patients. However, is consent actually granted? Common sense seems to dictate that while a patient is under the effect of anesthetics, doctors can do anything they want regarding tissues. Many assume that certain boundaries will not be crossed; however, profit can be derived from these tissues, profit that the patient, most likely, will never see, or perhaps even know about (Haile). According to doctors, with informed consent or not, tissue donors do not have commercial rights. Is it up to patients to decide if their tissues can be removed or not? If a patient is in a harmful situation sometimes the physician has no other choice but to remove the tissue. Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that tissue is only removed when the patient is aware of the removal and clear consent has been given, because in the end, the tissue belongs to no one but the patient. Whereas some are convinced that all doctors verify their patients and make sure that consent is granted, others maintain that doctors do what they want, when they want, and gain profit from doing so. In the court case Moore v. …show more content…
Regents of the University of California, the material trying to be resolved was based on the property rights of body parts. John Moore, a patient diagnosed with hairy-cell leukemia, received care from the UCLA Medical Center in 1976. Moore in fact signed written consent for the removal of his spleen and any severed tissue. What doctor David Golde forgot to mention was the possibly of financial benefit from Moore's bodily tissues. Although written consent was given for removal, the consent did not cover doctor Golde receiving benefits from Moore's property. So in fact, all of Moore's consent was not granted (Evans). The court decided that Moore no longer had any rights to the tissues used for monetary value. Times have changed from Henrietta Lacks experience