For decades, researchers have been making large strides in medical science, causing the cost of medical research and care to rise drastically. Many medical institutions remain dedicated to nonprofit studies with the goal of benefiting the greater community, but a large portion of them choose to commercialize in order to turn a profit, causing many to debate whether or not it is ethical to put a price on a human life. One contributor to the argument is Rebecca Skloot, whose book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, illustrates the life of Henrietta Lacks and how her cells were taken without permission, grown in culture, and bought and sold for millions of dollars, all while her family lived in poverty. Stories like the Lackses’ shed light
…show more content…
For example, going commercial provides economic stability, but pharmaceutical organizations tend to focus more on research that generates a profit. Historic World Events explains, “Pharmaceutical companies invest enormous sums of money sponsoring research projects with the goal of developing new drugs and new medical devices” (Historic World Events). Nonprofits, on the other hand, are more driven to provide care to as many people as possible, meaning there is a significant conflict of interests. Furthermore, commercial research entails scientists contributing their findings to the greater medical field, replicating each other’s work, and building off of the results of fellow researchers. This process stimulates economic and scientific growth, but implementing government regulations, which proponents of nonprofit …show more content…
Most prominently, poor patients can have a hard time paying the high costs of treatment, leaving them burdened with medical bills and large amounts of debt. To help ease the financial trouble of health care costs, health insurance was instituted; “Health insurance promised to insulate people from the risk of financial ruin due to runaway medical costs through what amounted to an easy-pay system for health care” (DISCovering U.S. History). However, DISCovering U.S. History continues, saying, “While large businesses provided health insurance to employees, it was not free” (DISCovering U.S. History). Nextly, researchers like David Korn claim that “people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research” (SOURCE?). Likewise, the primary justification doctors in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks have for not asking for consent is that it the contributions of human test subjects and sample donors contribute to the greater good of science. However, the irony of this view is that the prices of health care prevent many patients from taking advantage of drugs and cures resulting from patient testing. If patients are unable to access the many medicinal advancements the medical community has at its
For example, going commercial provides economic stability, but pharmaceutical organizations tend to focus more on research that generates a profit. Historic World Events explains, “Pharmaceutical companies invest enormous sums of money sponsoring research projects with the goal of developing new drugs and new medical devices” (Historic World Events). Nonprofits, on the other hand, are more driven to provide care to as many people as possible, meaning there is a significant conflict of interests. Furthermore, commercial research entails scientists contributing their findings to the greater medical field, replicating each other’s work, and building off of the results of fellow researchers. This process stimulates economic and scientific growth, but implementing government regulations, which proponents of nonprofit …show more content…
Most prominently, poor patients can have a hard time paying the high costs of treatment, leaving them burdened with medical bills and large amounts of debt. To help ease the financial trouble of health care costs, health insurance was instituted; “Health insurance promised to insulate people from the risk of financial ruin due to runaway medical costs through what amounted to an easy-pay system for health care” (DISCovering U.S. History). However, DISCovering U.S. History continues, saying, “While large businesses provided health insurance to employees, it was not free” (DISCovering U.S. History). Nextly, researchers like David Korn claim that “people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research” (SOURCE?). Likewise, the primary justification doctors in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks have for not asking for consent is that it the contributions of human test subjects and sample donors contribute to the greater good of science. However, the irony of this view is that the prices of health care prevent many patients from taking advantage of drugs and cures resulting from patient testing. If patients are unable to access the many medicinal advancements the medical community has at its