“Today we have a health insurance industry where the first and foremost goal is to maximize profits for shareholders and CEOs, not to cover patients who have fallen ill or to compensate doctors and hospitals for their services. It is an industry that is increasingly concentrated and where Americans are paying more to receive less”(Dianne Feinstein). The medical field has lost the idea of devoting their work to finding a cure and started to be for profit for the interests of CEOs. The CEOs then make millions because of the overpriced medical care people receive. In her nonfiction work The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot intertwines diction, expert opinions, and court cases to compare the advantages and disadvantages of potential
…show more content…
In the afterword, Skloot discusses the commercialization of human tissue, the patents on various genes, and the fact that the companies who own the patents dictate what research is done on the genes. This is troubling for the reason that it limits the time in which scientists find a cure the genetic disease. One, in particular, is Myriad Genetics, the owner of the license for the BRCA and BRCA2, which is the main cause of breast and ovarian cancer. Skloot exposes her distaste for the unethical business practices of Myriad Genetics by citing a court case filed against them, saying, “Myriad has been accused of creating a monopoly since no one else can offer the test, researchers can’t develop cheaper tests or new therapies without getting permission from Myriad … In May 2009 the American Civil Liberties Union, several breast cancer survivors, and professional groups representing over 150,000 scientists sued Myriad Genetics … scientists involved in the case claimed the practice of gene patenting has inhibited their research” (Skloot 325). Skloot includes diction such as “monopoly” to enrage the reader about Myriad Genetics and their business practices. As the term, “monopoly” has a negative connotation and is often associated with being illegal. It …show more content…
As Skloot dives further into the book she analyzes the Mo cell line controversy. John Moore had hairy-cell leukemia, that produced malignant blood cells that flooded his spleen, and was treated by David Golde. At one of his follow-up appointments, Moore asked Golde if his cells had any commercial value, Golde lied to him and said no. John suspected this and circled “do not” on his consent form. After that, Golde contacted him and harassed him to circle “do”. Finally, Moore filed a lawsuit against Golde and found out that he had been developing the Mo cell line for seven years. Moore had also found out that he filed for a patent on his cells because they contained immensely valuable proteins. Eventually, Moore ended up at the Supreme Court of California and Skloot states they ruled in Golde’s favor. However, Skloot asserts the fact that the judge agreed with him on the grounds of, “lack of informed consent, because Golde hadn’t disclosed his financial interests, and breach of fiduciary duty, meaning Golde had taken advantage of his position as a doctor and violated patient trust. The court said researchers should disclose their financial interests in patient tissues”(Skloot 205). Rebecca Skloot includes the judge because they are a person of authority, and
In the afterword, Skloot discusses the commercialization of human tissue, the patents on various genes, and the fact that the companies who own the patents dictate what research is done on the genes. This is troubling for the reason that it limits the time in which scientists find a cure the genetic disease. One, in particular, is Myriad Genetics, the owner of the license for the BRCA and BRCA2, which is the main cause of breast and ovarian cancer. Skloot exposes her distaste for the unethical business practices of Myriad Genetics by citing a court case filed against them, saying, “Myriad has been accused of creating a monopoly since no one else can offer the test, researchers can’t develop cheaper tests or new therapies without getting permission from Myriad … In May 2009 the American Civil Liberties Union, several breast cancer survivors, and professional groups representing over 150,000 scientists sued Myriad Genetics … scientists involved in the case claimed the practice of gene patenting has inhibited their research” (Skloot 325). Skloot includes diction such as “monopoly” to enrage the reader about Myriad Genetics and their business practices. As the term, “monopoly” has a negative connotation and is often associated with being illegal. It …show more content…
As Skloot dives further into the book she analyzes the Mo cell line controversy. John Moore had hairy-cell leukemia, that produced malignant blood cells that flooded his spleen, and was treated by David Golde. At one of his follow-up appointments, Moore asked Golde if his cells had any commercial value, Golde lied to him and said no. John suspected this and circled “do not” on his consent form. After that, Golde contacted him and harassed him to circle “do”. Finally, Moore filed a lawsuit against Golde and found out that he had been developing the Mo cell line for seven years. Moore had also found out that he filed for a patent on his cells because they contained immensely valuable proteins. Eventually, Moore ended up at the Supreme Court of California and Skloot states they ruled in Golde’s favor. However, Skloot asserts the fact that the judge agreed with him on the grounds of, “lack of informed consent, because Golde hadn’t disclosed his financial interests, and breach of fiduciary duty, meaning Golde had taken advantage of his position as a doctor and violated patient trust. The court said researchers should disclose their financial interests in patient tissues”(Skloot 205). Rebecca Skloot includes the judge because they are a person of authority, and