The Henrietta Lacks Question - Donating your "body" for a good cause?

[Colon capital V]

Imagine one day a person walks up to you and asks if you would be willing to donate a small sample of your DNA to clone. It will be used to make test subjects in order to trial and error god knows what in their secret lab base. This could range from seeing how your clones react to vaccine injections to full-on Hollocaust levels of depravity and torture all in the name of Science. But in the end they're basically treated as test mice. Once they're finished testing, the first batch is killed off and a fresh set is brought in.

You don't get any benefits out of this for yourself (other than maybe helping out furthering advancements in medical progression) and your original self will be perfectly fine and unaffected. The same cannot be said about any of your future clones, so would you do it?

I call this the Henreitta Lacks Question because that's essentially what this little thought experiment is IRL. Despite being dead for over 70 years now, the cancer cells Henreitta inhibited managed to win the biological lotto and have been replicating non-stop ever since, being used to experiment for treatments and whatever else to help further human medical advancements.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

The Henrietta Lacks book is pushed hard as required reading for freshmen in college. It combines "the greater good" with "muh racism" to "start a conversation". If anything this exposes one of the many glaring contradictions of the progressive movement. This is only a thought experiment within the confines of American progressive/liberal dogma. Many other philosophies don't have this conundrum but the lack of variety in American universities leads one to think this is universal. This doesn't cover superior examples of societal progress v personal liberty where race isn't shoehorned in and isn't subject to current political propaganda.

TL;DR shes black and they only took 2/5 of the cancer cells so it's ethical.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

I'd say something like, "Let's sit down in a month and negotiate properly." Then I'd go hire the scummiest Jew lawyer I could find to make sure I (and likely him by extension) would be properly compensated (i.e. I get to spend the rest of my life on easy street).

If I cannot do that, they can piss up a rope.

 

[Harvey Danger]

A clone that can feel pain is not the same thing as cancer cells in a petri dish. You can't say "they're both alive" and force an equivalency.

This is reductionist biological materialism, and depending on your stance on materialism, it's either dishonest or it's a massive leap to conclusions. "Person X = their DNA; Lack's DNA is being kept alive without consent; therefore Lack is alive and being tested without consent". That's the necessary foundation to even pose the question in the form you stated it, and there's such glaring holes in that syllogism you'll never argue your way through to get to the morality part after it.

 

[.iota.]

or, bear with me here, or ... imagine that you are a 31 year old mother of five, living in a steel mill town outside of baltimore, maryland in the early 1950s. after giving birth to your fifth child, you experience intense abdominal pain and bleeding for weeks. you've been to the hospital several times, but because you're poor, black, and living in segregated america, your reproductive health care is not a priority.

fortunately, though, there is a highly-regarded medical facitlity in the big city near you, and you receive a referral because the founder of that facility was a humanitarian who dictated in his will that the facility bearing his name will serve all people, regardless of social status. you leave your family, and enter the segregated ward of johns hopkins hospital, where upon examination, a large cancerous tumor is detected. this tumor is so large that it's obvious that it had been present throughout your previous pregnancy, and since your child's birth, without having been noticed or addressed by your previous medical providers.

the treatment is brutal; the doctors at johns hopkins perform surgery to sew several small pouches, each containing a small rod of radium, onto your cervix. while doing so, they also remove the tumor, as well as a significant amount of healthy uterine, cervical, and vaginal tissue. they do this without anesthesia, without pain medication, without your consent, and without informing you of what is happening. you, as a poor black woman, are far from your family, who are not allowed to visit, and completely at their mercy.

the facility then allows those tissues to be taken by a doctor whose only goal while attending to your surgery was to gather those tissues to add to his collection. since not many hospitals in the country will even treat non-white cancer patients, he considers johns hopkins to be an ideal place to harvest as great of a variety of cancerous tissue samples as he can. most of the other samples that he has collected have died within a day of surgery, but not yours. instead, your cancer cells double, every 24 hours. the doctor is thrilled; he'll be heralded as a genius, perhaps there will be a nobel prize, and johns hopkins will gain worldwide acclaim!

except, you are totally unaware that any of this is happening because the radium that has been surgically implanted in your abdomen is poisoning you. within months, you die a horrible and excruciating death, without the comfort of pain medication, your children, or your husband. your family are not informed of what has happened, and they are legally barred from obtaining your medical records.

sixty years later, after millions of the cells that were harvested from your body without your knowledge have been distributed around the world for all manner of medical experimentation, a medical historian stumbles across your case and becomes interested. she contacts johns hopkins and the state medical board, she inquires with retired medical personnel and with your descendants, and finally, the truth is revealed. laws are amended, medical consent policies are created, and eventually, your genetic legacy is acknowledged.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks | Johns Hopkins Medicine

 

[Colon capital V]

A clone that can feel pain is not the same thing as cancer cells in a petri dish. You can't say "they're both alive" and force an equivalency.

This is reductionist biological materialism, and depending on your stance on materialism, it's either dishonest or it's a massive leap to conclusions. "Person X = their DNA; Lack's DNA is being kept alive without consent; therefore Lack is alive and being tested without consent". That's the necessary foundation to even pose the question in the form you stated it, and there's such glaring holes in that syllogism you'll never argue your way through to get to the morality part after it.

I suppose "Lack's cancer cells are the closest thing to this thought experiment" would've been more accurate. As yeah, they're just cells that don't have any form of identity, consciousness or feelings attached to them and the whole Person cloning process is just a very extreme version of this. Where instead of cloning and testing cells that can't feel or do much, now it's "what if we did the same thing to a real person instead?"

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Ok, so I don't benefit in any way, basically I just get to live knowing they're creating a bunch of what are almost like my children, just to suffer?

I'm confused as to why there would be any motive to go along with that. Heck, I'm confused as to why there would be any motive on their part either. If they were going to clone a standardized human test subject, they'd be better off artificially selecting/breeding them for stuff like disease resistance and mild temper like they do with the rodents they use for clinical studies currently.

It might be a little more tempting if there was significant, especially ongoing payment. I still wouldn't do it, but it would be more tempting.

 

[Dysnomia]

I wouldn't like this very much. I don't care if they use my cells to cure diseases. But I don't want a bunch of artificial twin me's living in a lab.

 

[Pixy]

The Henrietta Lacks book is pushed hard as required reading for freshmen in college. It combines "the greater good" with "muh racism" to "start a conversation". If anything this exposes one of the many glaring contradictions of the progressive movement. This is only a thought experiment within the confines of American progressive/liberal dogma. Many other philosophies don't have this conundrum but the lack of variety in American universities leads one to think this is universal. This doesn't cover superior examples of societal progress v personal liberty where race isn't shoehorned in and isn't subject to current political propaganda.

TL;DR shes black and they only took 2/5 of the cancer cells so it's ethical.

They actually push the book? It's literally just 2-3 powerpoint slides in first-year STEM degree courses.

The main concern they want to instil in students is the necessity of consent for biopsies, transparency and patient awareness of how the samples shall be used, alongside proper sample labelling/identification. When you start working with HeLa cells, it's not something they shove down your throat.

 

[William Tyndale]

This is just animal husbandry on the macro level. Also comparing a clump of cells regenerating to creating an entire twin human from my dna and torturing it to death is dumb.

 

[booklover]

"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" places its emphasis on medical ethics. BTW, where did it say that the palliative procedure she had to remove her cancer was done without anesthesia? I don't remember anything about that, although it's been a while.

I'm part of a big study being done by the American Cancer Society, and a couple years ago, I had an opportunity for a slice of my own cancer to be sent to them for research. I had to fill out a LOT of paperwork, and one thing that popped up over and over again was that contrary to some rumors, this was NOT being done to obtain material for human cloning.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

A fetus that has a heartbeat and can survive for couple of hours outside his mother before expiring - Not a real human and can be murdered if the mother wills it.
A clump of cancer cells that was going to be thrown out anyways - Totally a valid human being you racist.

Got to love the medical establishment. Also the case is the usual nigger movement of trying to argue they need to be recompensated for something that they put zero effort in and probably has already enjoyed the fruits of the work indirectly.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

They actually push the book?

Yes. Some universities make it required reading for incoming freshmen of all majors.

 

[Pixy]

A clump of cancer cells that was going to be thrown out anyways - Totally a valid human being you racist.

Nobody's making that argument about the cells being humans besides the strawmen and occasional schitzo. It's about ethics in games journalism patient consent and biopsies.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Nobody's making that argument about the cells being humans besides the strawmen and occasional schitzo. It's about ethics in games journalism patient consent and biopsies.

It's such a retardedly impossible event that there is absolutely no reason to even delve into the morality of it. Especially as if the woman was white no one would have cared.

 

[Harvey Danger]

I suppose "Lack's cancer cells are the closest thing to this thought experiment" would've been more accurate. As yeah, they're just cells that don't have any form of identity, consciousness or feelings attached to them and the whole Person cloning process is just a very extreme version of this. Where instead of cloning and testing cells that can't feel or do much, now it's "what if we did the same thing to a real person instead?"

Yes, although the challenges I raised still need to be dealt with. Whenever you start talking about cloning, the base questions of identity and humanity will come up, and you're going to need to define what the threshold is for something to be considered a "human being". Humans get extra protections and considerations that we don't extend to cells, organs, limbs, etc.

Keep in mind a large number of modern scientists are materialists, and a significant number of materialists get hung up on DNA being the only objective differentiating thing between individuals. Attacking the "Person X = their DNA" premise is not a thought experiment, you're going to get reduced down to arguing it eventually.

 

[booklover]

The issue with Ms. Lacks was that her cells were taken for research without the consent of her, or her family. This is also an issue with the Wistar-38 cell line, lung tissue obtained from a fetus that was aborted legally in 1962 in Sweden, also taken without the mother's consent, but it has also been used in vaccine research (which is where some anti-vaxxers' ideas come from). As of a few years ago, the doctor who did the procedure, the doctor who cultured the cells, and the mother, who wished to be known only as "Mrs. X", were still living.

https://thebiomedicalscientist.net/science/controversial-life

The Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Disease: Wadman, Meredith: 9780525427537: Amazon.com: Books

The Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Disease [Wadman, Meredith] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Disease

www.amazon.com

or, bear with me here, or ... imagine that you are a 31 year old mother of five, living in a steel mill town outside of baltimore, maryland in the early 1950s. after giving birth to your fifth child, you experience intense abdominal pain and bleeding for weeks. you've been to the hospital several times, but because you're poor, black, and living in segregated america, your reproductive health care is not a priority.

fortunately, though, there is a highly-regarded medical facitlity in the big city near you, and you receive a referral because the founder of that facility was a humanitarian who dictated in his will that the facility bearing his name will serve all people, regardless of social status. you leave your family, and enter the segregated ward of johns hopkins hospital, where upon examination, a large cancerous tumor is detected. this tumor is so large that it's obvious that it had been present throughout your previous pregnancy, and since your child's birth, without having been noticed or addressed by your previous medical providers.

the treatment is brutal; the doctors at johns hopkins perform surgery to sew several small pouches, each containing a small rod of radium, onto your cervix. while doing so, they also remove the tumor, as well as a significant amount of healthy uterine, cervical, and vaginal tissue. they do this without anesthesia, without pain medication, without your consent, and without informing you of what is happening. you, as a poor black woman, are far from your family, who are not allowed to visit, and completely at their mercy.

the facility then allows those tissues to be taken by a doctor whose only goal while attending to your surgery was to gather those tissues to add to his collection. since not many hospitals in the country will even treat non-white cancer patients, he considers johns hopkins to be an ideal place to harvest as great of a variety of cancerous tissue samples as he can. most of the other samples that he has collected have died within a day of surgery, but not yours. instead, your cancer cells double, every 24 hours. the doctor is thrilled; he'll be heralded as a genius, perhaps there will be a nobel prize, and johns hopkins will gain worldwide acclaim!

except, you are totally unaware that any of this is happening because the radium that has been surgically implanted in your abdomen is poisoning you. within months, you die a horrible and excruciating death, without the comfort of pain medication, your children, or your husband. your family are not informed of what has happened, and they are legally barred from obtaining your medical records.

sixty years later, after millions of the cells that were harvested from your body without your knowledge have been distributed around the world for all manner of medical experimentation, a medical historian stumbles across your case and becomes interested. she contacts johns hopkins and the state medical board, she inquires with retired medical personnel and with your descendants, and finally, the truth is revealed. laws are amended, medical consent policies are created, and eventually, your genetic legacy is acknowledged.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks | Johns Hopkins Medicine

While it's been a while since I read the book, I don't remember anything about her surgeries being done without anesthesia. I do remember that when the doctor who ran this program developed terminal prostate cancer himself, he wanted his cells to be donated to the program, and dubbed GeGe after his name, Dr. George Gey (pronounced "gay") but for some reason they weren't.

 

[DaBigBopper]

From what I recall the cell lines that currently are in use now basically no longer resemble her original tumor line. They are effectively a lab species of cells that branched away of humans, a new evolutionary path basically.

My issue with a lot of donating your body to a cause is that in the case of Mrs. Lacks and others were basically harvested when there were actually some set of ethics on the books, but no one to enforce those ethics. I think her direct descendants actually did get some money from it.

To answer the question: Fuck no. A clone is just another method of reproduction, it's basically like torturing your kids so the faggot the next town over doesn't have to worry about AIDS.

 

[Otterly]

No to the cloning.
Medical ethics is pretty important, the last couple of years have shown us the paths we go down when we discard them.
Lacks should have been asked for permission to use her tissues. Anyone, anywhere who donates physical tissue or dna information should be fully briefed on what it will be or potentially will be used for and they should give fully informed consent. No other way is ethical.
Once we start being able to take tissues from people, or force people to take a drug or vaccine it’s a slippery slope. Ethics is the only line we have for predatory practices. Here’s another example: one of the big DNA ancestry companies sold a couple of dozen dna profiles to a pharma company for 200k EACH to develop a drug. The people the DNA was from were not notified or compensated. The info helped the pharma company accelerate the development process and resulted in a couple of BILLION dollars of profit. Pharma has zero compunction in literally selling you, as a product. Unless they’re reined in by the harshest ethics and privacy laws we can draw up the future will be hellish
Sorry citizen, our great leader’s daughter needs a liver transplant and you’re a match so we will take a section of yours. This rich dude wants a baby, you will be a surrogate. We will harvest skin from you. And blood. And yes everyone says don’t be ridiculous but twenty years ago you would be called ridiculous for suggesting that repealing section 28 would lead to kids being taught about anal sex in schools.
And here we are…

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

No to the cloning.
Medical ethics is pretty important, the last couple of years have shown us the paths we go down when we discard them.
Lacks should have been asked for permission to use her tissues. Anyone, anywhere who donates physical tissue or dna information should be fully briefed on what it will be or potentially will be used for and they should give fully informed consent. No other way is ethical.
Once we start being able to take tissues from people, or force people to take a drug or vaccine it’s a slippery slope. Ethics is the only line we have for predatory practices. Here’s another example: one of the big DNA ancestry companies sold a couple of dozen dna profiles to a pharma company for 200k EACH to develop a drug. The people the DNA was from were not notified or compensated. The info helped the pharma company accelerate the development process and resulted in a couple of BILLION dollars of profit. Pharma has zero compunction in literally selling you, as a product. Unless they’re reined in by the harshest ethics and privacy laws we can draw up the future will be hellish
Sorry citizen, our great leader’s daughter needs a liver transplant and you’re a match so we will take a section of yours. This rich dude wants a baby, you will be a surrogate. We will harvest skin from you. And blood. And yes everyone says don’t be ridiculous but twenty years ago you would be called ridiculous for suggesting that repealing section 28 would lead to kids being taught about anal sex in schools.
And here we are…

I'll take the devil's advocate position. As long as you aren't making a patient take an extra medical procedure, or sell a patient's private data to corporate entities then using things like extracted tissue or dna statistics in research should be tolerated.
The alternative is potential breakthroughs never happening because idiocy/greed and humanity being worse for it.

The ideal of ethics in research in general is just a way for academia to stop whatever is threatening it's influence and monopoly. Everything you mentioned was sponsored by academia but the moment you get into things like copyright or racial differences you are stepping over a red line and risking academia's good name.