Often called into question is the validity of the argument that human cells and tissues are the property of the hosts they came from after being removed from their body. To label parts of the human body, our anchor to this world, as personal property is very difficult. Even more difficult is deciding to whom these cells belong to after they are no longer a part of the person they came from. It is important to look at the benefits of research on the cells of people in order to help others. However is it not equally as important to analyze the inhumane nature required to take the cells of another human being to research and profit without the patient's informed consent? Deeming who cells belong to is not a conversation that can be had without
…show more content…
In most cases, “While the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act does not mention the sale of organs, the word “gift” has been interpreted to mean that transfers must be donative (i.e., without compensation)”(Wagner). Organ transfers must be donative otherwise they would go to the highest bidder rather than to the person who needs them the most. While this is justified calling organs “gifts” when given to hospitals betrays the notion that in most cases, people do not understand what is going to happen with their cells after they are removed. As well as this how can something be called a gift when it is taken from a host without their knowledge like in the case of Henrietta Lacks. Despite what we lacked already on the topic, “Our struggles to define genetic property rights have highlighted inconsistencies in US policy, particularly when it comes to deciding whether compensation is appropriate and permissible, or a coercive force, and thus impermissible” (Wagner). The flaws in our current policies regarding transactions of cells call for reforms. The cells belong to those who they came from, with clear, informed transactions that stay true to the origins of the cells being more than just samples, but rather parts of people the gaps in our policies can be
In most cases, “While the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act does not mention the sale of organs, the word “gift” has been interpreted to mean that transfers must be donative (i.e., without compensation)”(Wagner). Organ transfers must be donative otherwise they would go to the highest bidder rather than to the person who needs them the most. While this is justified calling organs “gifts” when given to hospitals betrays the notion that in most cases, people do not understand what is going to happen with their cells after they are removed. As well as this how can something be called a gift when it is taken from a host without their knowledge like in the case of Henrietta Lacks. Despite what we lacked already on the topic, “Our struggles to define genetic property rights have highlighted inconsistencies in US policy, particularly when it comes to deciding whether compensation is appropriate and permissible, or a coercive force, and thus impermissible” (Wagner). The flaws in our current policies regarding transactions of cells call for reforms. The cells belong to those who they came from, with clear, informed transactions that stay true to the origins of the cells being more than just samples, but rather parts of people the gaps in our policies can be