Throughout the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Skloot compares the ethical sacrifices that the doctors made with the impressive progression in medicine. Henrietta Lacks was a black woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins. During the first treatment, Dr. Lawrence Wharton Jr. did something before the treatment that would be condemned in modern medicine.
“But first—though no one had told Henrietta that TeLinde was collecting samples or asked if she wanted to be a donor—Wharton picked up a sharp knife and shaved two dim-sized pieces of tissue from Henrietta’s cervix…” (33).
This was done due to Dr. George Gey’s goal was to somehow grow immortal cells. He was another doctor at Johns Hopkins and often non consensually took biopsies of patients, violating hundreds of privacy. The two pieces of tissues were later transported to Dr. Gey’s lab, where the later named HeLa cells grew immortally. This event led to a big conflict: to protect or not to protect one’s privacy?
Another incident involved Chester Southam, who was a virologist, wanted to understand what would happen when HeLa cells are injected into humans. The way Southam conducted this experiment was problematic.
“[Southam] repeated this process with about a dozen other cancer patients. He told them he was testing their immune systems; he said nothing about injecting them with someone else’s malignant cells” (128).
Southam did not inform his patients properly, violating their privacy and bodies. Imagine being injected with malignant cells thinking that they are for your immune systems.
Informed consent is essential in medical practices. Martin Salgo was not informed of any risks of his procedure.
“He went under anesthesia for what he thought was a routine procedure and woke up permanently paralyzed from the waist down” (132).
This did not only violate Martin’s privacy as a person, but also put him at such a dangerous risk. Doctors treated patients as
Privacy being ignored for one’s own benefits occurs frequently. Most of the times, news would report a celebrity’s social media being hacked. Even Mark Zuckerberg’s own Facebook page was hacked. These hackers disregard the privacy of the original owners of the accounts often for the fun. Other time, professional hackers do earn money from hacking intothe accounts and obtaining private information. This modern example of ignoring other people’s privacy also shows how different periods of time can affect the same kind of situation.
Citation
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, Random House, 2010.
One thought on “To Protect Or Not To Protect One’s Privacy?”
Hi Allison,
I found it interesting how you related the violation of privacy in medicine to current the violation of privacy online because it was in the media for a long time and still is a big area of concern for the public. I agree with you how both are violating personal privacy for the sake of personal benefit, but I think I would personally put a bigger focus on companies using user information compared to hacking. In Henrietta, a case can be argued for how the doctors took the cell for the benefit of the public (in order to advance the scientific field), maybe not necessarily for monetary gain. In cases like facebook taking people’s information however, I think that the motivation/benefit is truly personal though, because by taking the information, they are only benefitting the company, no one else. It does not help the public, it only allows the company to grow and target their possible clients. However, since companies like facebook force you to sign agreements when you sign up, do you think it’s still illegal for them to use/sell this information? Do you think it was illegal for them to take Henrietta’s cells because back then they didn’t need consent to do so? I enjoyed reading your connections back to the current state of online privacy as it allowed me to remember once again, not to put my personal information online.
Hi Allison,
I found it interesting how you related the violation of privacy in medicine to current the violation of privacy online because it was in the media for a long time and still is a big area of concern for the public. I agree with you how both are violating personal privacy for the sake of personal benefit, but I think I would personally put a bigger focus on companies using user information compared to hacking. In Henrietta, a case can be argued for how the doctors took the cell for the benefit of the public (in order to advance the scientific field), maybe not necessarily for monetary gain. In cases like facebook taking people’s information however, I think that the motivation/benefit is truly personal though, because by taking the information, they are only benefitting the company, no one else. It does not help the public, it only allows the company to grow and target their possible clients. However, since companies like facebook force you to sign agreements when you sign up, do you think it’s still illegal for them to use/sell this information? Do you think it was illegal for them to take Henrietta’s cells because back then they didn’t need consent to do so? I enjoyed reading your connections back to the current state of online privacy as it allowed me to remember once again, not to put my personal information online.