from wikipedia.org linked here
Henrietta Lacks (August 18, 1920 – October 4, 1951) was an African–American woman who was the unwitting donor of cells from her cancerous tumor, which were cultured by George Otto Gey to create an immortal cell line for medical research. This is now known as the HeLa cell line.
A HeLa cell (also Hela or hela cell) is a cell type in an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is one of the oldest and most commonly used human cell lines.The line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks, a patient who eventually died of her cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific as illustrated by its contamination of many other cell lines used in research.
The cells were propagated by George Otto Gey when Lacks died in 1951. This was the first human cell line to prove successful in vitro, which was a scientific achievement with profound future benefit to medical research. Yet Gey freely donated both the cells and the tools and processes his lab developed to any scientists who requested them, simply for the benefit of science. Neither Lacks nor her family gave Gey permission, and at that time, permission was neither required nor customarily sought. The cells were later commercialized, although never patented in their original form. Then, as now, there was no requirement to inform a patient, or their relatives, about such matters because discarded material, or material obtained during surgery, diagnosis or therapy, was the property of the physician and/or medical institution. This issue and Mrs. Lacks' situation was brought up in the Supreme Court of California case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California. The court ruled that a person's discarded tissue and cells are not their property and can be commercialized.
HeLa cells are termed "immortal" in that they can divide an unlimited number of times in a laboratory cell culture plate as long as fundamental cell survival conditions are met (i.e. being maintained and sustained in a suitable environment). There are many strains of HeLa cells as they continue to evolve by being grown in cell cultures, but all HeLa cells are descended from the same tumor cells removed from Mrs. Lacks. It has been estimated that the total number of HeLa cells that have been propagated in cell culture far exceeds the total number of cells that were in Henrietta Lacks' body.
In her 2010 book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot documents the histories of both the HeLa cell line and the Lacks family. Henrietta's husband, David Lacks, was told little following her death. Suspicions fueled by racial issues prevalent in the South were compounded by issues of class and education. For their part, members of the Lacks family were kept in the dark about the existence of the tissue line, and when its existence was revealed, family members were confused about how Henrietta's cells could have been taken without consent and how they could still be alive 50 years after her death.
Skloot also told the story of Henrietta Lacks on an episode of Radiolab,in which she mentioned that despite the contributions of Henrietta Lacks' cells to medicine and science, Lacks' own family does not have health insurance to be able to benefit from the medical discoveries made with her cells. The episode features audio footage of Skloot and Deborah traveling together, as well as footage of Deborah Lacks talking about her mother's cells. In May 2010, The Virginian-Pilot published two articles on Lacks, HeLa, and her family, which mentions that the Morehouse School of Medicine has donated the money for Henrietta's grave as well as her daughter Elsie, who died in 1955, to finally have headstones. Her grandchildren wrote her epitaph: "Henrietta Lacks August 01, 1920 - October 04, 1951 In loving memory of a phenomenal woman, wife and mother who touched the lives of many. Here lies Henrietta Lacks (HeLa). Her immortal cells will continue to help mankind forever. Eternal Love and Admiration, From Your Family"
******************************
Your assignment is to make a comment to this prompt:
Do you as an individual "own" your cells or does society / government "own" your cells?
Please consider the rights to privacy and or financial gain of an individual such as Henrietta Lacks (and her family). Also consider the rights of society to improve the "human condition" even when in conflict with the rights of the individual.
Thanks, Mr. A
******************************
A HeLa cell (also Hela or hela cell) is a cell type in an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is one of the oldest and most commonly used human cell lines.
ReplyDeleteI believe that yes, we own our own cells, it's in our body and it's what keeps us alive, so we have complete and total ownership of our own cells. It is our human right to give permission to science to take our cell once we are dead regardless if it could improve humanity. But I also believe that if our cells could improve the human scare, we would give permission to science to develop whatever it is that they want to improve, but they should ask permission. We are not owned by the government or by the society of science, and I believe what they did to Henrietta and her family was not fair. They must have gotten a huge profit out of making the ‘Immortal cells’ yet her family was kept in complete darkness on this whole operation.
They should always ask permission and that’s it, it’s the right thing to do and it also respects the dead.
Cassia E.
Henrietta Lacks' immortal cells have been used for several years without her consent or without rewarding her for it, on the basis that "discarded tissue" from treatments is not her property. This raises significant political and moral issues. First of all, if the cell is still part of a person's body, it is their property and their property alone. Discarded tissue and cells should be nobody's property, BUT: if the patient asks for them, he or she should be able to obtain them, and if they are deemed useful for other purposes, any benefit, financial or otherwise, should be shared with the patient. The patient should also be able to reclaim his or her cells if he or she does not approve of the experimentation being done on his or her cells. The only case in which the government should be able to override the patient's say in the matter is if the cells have the potential to lead to a great discovery and there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate it. Otherwise, the person's decision and privacy should be valued above all else. If the person is dead, the family should be consulted, as some cultures and religions do not take kindly to their dead not being allowed to rest undisturbed.
ReplyDeleteJulian A.
I believe that we should get to “own” our own cells. If they are to be used for scientific research or any other medical uses, the person’s permission should be asked. If that person has died, his or her family should at least be informed that the cells are going to be used for medical purposes and the family should be asked for permission to use the cells. I think that it is a basic human right to get to “own” your cells. The cells are part of the person’s body and they are his or her property only, not anyone else’s. It is not right that someone gets to use someone’s cells and violate his or her privacy without his or her knowledge or permission. In addition, there are possible financial gains that could be received but the original cell “owner” does not get anything because he or she does not even know that his or her cells are being used for something. Since the cells are the donor’s, he or she deserves at least a portion of the financial gains, if most or all of them. In conclusion, the government or society should not have the right to “own” people’s cells and use them for medical or scientific purposes without the cell owner’s permission.
ReplyDeleteIines K.
I believe that the cells we have are our own; therefore, we own them. I think using cells is a very useful resource for scientific use. If our cells are used for any type of scientific use the person should be informed. If the person wishes to allow the experiment then it can be used; however, if the person decides they want some economic compensation for their cells a negotiation should be made. Finally, if the person does not want their cells to be used the laboratory that wanted to use the cells will not be able to do so.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that in some cases cells should be "taken" away from someone for the greater good. For example, if we know a person has the cells to cure cancer we should obtain them for the greater good of the world even if the person who has them does not want to provide them.
Blanca Muñoz
Thanks to the creation of cell lines such as HeLa cell line, scientist took an advantage of progressing medical skills like developing vaccines. However, this creation of HeLa cell line should be considered as an immoral experiment. That is because the patient, Henrietta Lacks did not get any credit for the successful experiment. George Otto Gey, a scientist who researched Henrietta's cervial cancer cells, did not inform the patient nor her family about the test he was going to progress. George Otto Gey must have asked for permission before the try out , since I strongly believe that we 'own' our own cells. As writers, and designers have their copyright, I think the patients have their rights to give permission whether they want their cells to be used in experiments. In addition, even though the patient is dead, scientist must ask for permission to her or his relatives. Moreover, the HeLa cell line case should have been especially informed because the scientist profited a lot from Henrietta's cells. If the patient participated on donating his or her cells, it is evident that they should also be profited. Given these points; (1) cells are also count as a part of our body, (2) should be equally benefited, we should be the owners of our cells.
ReplyDeleteDaseul K.
In my opinion, indisputably, patient's own their own cells. It is absolutely ridiculous for it to be otherwise. If one's cells belonged to the government, they could practically put anyone through an operation or procedure that wasn't desired in the first place. An individual should always have the right over their body and choose what they want to do with it. If someone happens to have a fascinating array of cells that could help science, they could probably be convinced into donating some but should never be obliged to.
ReplyDeleteRocío C.
In my personal opinion I am completely in favor of helping in the development of medicine. But one thing I do think is that we own our cells and that we have the rights to decide if we donate our cells to science labs or not. I also think that what they did to Henrietta Lacks by using her cells, copying them and spreading them to anyone for the benefit of science, is a violation of her rights of privacy of her own body. Even tough her cells helped many, I find it very disrespectful for Henrietta and her family that doctors just decided to take cells from her during surgery and then commercialize them like it was their own.
ReplyDeleteIlona P.
The cells in our body belong to us and only us. If the government were the owners of them, what would the point of having civil rights be? However I believe that the body can be donated to medical research after death but it has to be stated on the person's will. In the case of Henrietta Lacks the government should have financially aid the family instead of just taking the body for their own purposes without even having the permission of the family. Even worse, the government did not blink an eye when those cells were commercialized without even leaving any sorts of income to the respective family. Even if they were utilized for improving human life, some sort of approval and permission from authorities must be required.
ReplyDeleteSantiago Z.
I believe that an individual should own their own cells, because after all it is who they are. We should have complete ownership of our own cells and they should only be allowed to be used for scientific research if the individual gives specific permission that it would be okay. If the person passes away before they can ask permission the individual’s relatives should decide. However, if they decide that they will give permission to use the dead individual’s cells for scientific purpose they should be able to either profit financially or at least her family should be able to benefit from the medical discoveries made. I think that it is a basic human right to “own” your cells. The donor of the cell at least should be able to get some financial gains of the discoveries that get made from their cells. In conclusion I believe that the government should not have the right to own peoples cells and use them for scientific purposes without the cells owner’s permission.
ReplyDeleteIsabella B.
Henrietta Lacks’ immortal cells have helped make great advancements in science and medicine. These cells might have been and continue to be extremely useful to science, but were taken without permission. Henrietta Lacks had no idea that her cells would be used for research postmortem. This wasn’t right. Cells are part of the human body; therefore, are the person’s property. A person owns all their cells and all their other body parts, as they are a piece of a person. In my opinion, cells and organs should be able to be used for science but only if the person is willing to donate them after death. In other words, the patient or their family members (if the circumstances require) should give permission for these proposed uses. In conclusion, I believe that the owner should give permission for the scientific use of any of their body parts.
ReplyDeleteCarmen A.
As an individual I own my cells with out a doubt. Whilst alive, I believe humans of all ages not just 18+ should be able to decide what they want, or will donate. However, once I pass away I already plan on perhaps giving a vital organ to another individual but I hope I still have time to think about that. But, in this situation I am in control and I can decide for myself. On the other hand, once I die I think my corpse should belong to my family and they can decide if they want to give my body to research. I do not think that the government should decide that.
ReplyDeleteI think that at the end of the day what they did to Henrietta Lacks was in correct. Because the means did not justify the outcome. I believe in respect, respect of the living and dead.
ANNA VDL
I believe that an individual owns his or her cells, but government or society can make use of it as long as they have the permission. If any organization or society is going to use a person’s cell for any reason, it is a required thing to ask the permission, since nobody else owns his/her cells. However, if the person is dead, I think it is right to ask the person’s family for permission, at least, instead of the person.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, George Otto Gey’s commercializing Lack’s cells without informing her family was very immoral and not acceptable. Also, the fact that Lack’s family did not know about the existence of the tissue line should not have had happened, Gey should have informed them before he was going to use the cells, even if they are discarded cells.
I would not want scientists to use my cells without my permission or my family’s permission, and therefore I believe that individuals should be able to “own” their own cells, even after death.
Min C
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that one's cells, even when discarded in surgery, are one's property. Although Lack's cells have helped many people and science in general, I think that she, or her family, should have been, one, asked to use her cells and, two, had some sort of higher recognition for her participation. After all, without her, these advances would not have been possible and I believe that should be recognized. The idea that the government owns any part of you is scary. There is no reason for any government to own any part of you, even your cells. To conclude, I support the use of people's cells and the advances they could bring but I don't find it just to violate somebody's rights to get them.
ReplyDeleteCooper D
I think that a persons cells belong to them, since they are what make up a lot of our bodies and hold vital information about each of us. Lack's cells were immortal and therefor helped contribute to scientific research, but I don't think that it was right for society to take them away and use them without permission. Since she was dead, the proper actions of at least asking her family should have been done. When a person decided to donate a part of their body for medical or scientific research then that is a choice that the person should make themselves, not without being told. Violating a human's right that way was wrong.
ReplyDeleteTina Z
In the modern and capitalist society we live in, there is a tendency to value individual rights. In this case, I think that if any cells are extracted from a human being, it is there right to obtain a portion of the financial benefit these cells could cause. Cells are parts of our body, just like an arm or leg is, and for that reason, no government should be able to “own” these cells. It is unacceptable that so many discoveries and benefits have been made from the cells of Lacks, and that none of that profit has gone to her family. Nevertheless, I think that for the objective of the greater good, it should be sometimes acceptable for society to own these cells if the individual is against allowing experimentation on them.
ReplyDeleteJaime M.
In personally believe that every human being has the right to "own" their body in any way possible. I think that performing cell extraction from someone should only be done, if the patient agrees to donate whatever they want. However, these cells could be beneficial towards research and medical discoveries. Even though, it should not be permitted as a regular process. Lack's cells should have been recognized worldwide, thanks to her there have been many discoveries. To conclude, I think that cell extraction should not be partly illegal, as people have the right to chose what to do with their bodies. Even though this process may aid researchers around the world.
ReplyDeleteIgnacio P.B
I think that permission should be given to commercialize cells after death. If the tissue is removed during a surgery then it should be commercialized unless requested not to. If it is removed during surgery it is most likely harmful, but if you die then permission should be needed to harvest the cells. If the cells can help medical research it would be better if they were donated, but still with the permission of the donor.
ReplyDeleteReece H.
I believe that we “own” our cells because they are a part of our body and we should be able to decide whether we want our cells to be used for scientific or medical purposes. Henrietta Lack’s cells led to many scientific and medical discoveries but Lack’s had never agreed to allow her cells to be used for medical purposes. Furthermore, her family never received financial gain or recognition for the use of Lack’s cells. Because of this, I believe that people should have a right to decide whether they want their cells or organs to be used in scientific experiments. In addition, the family should gain financially from the experiment. In conclusion, although these experiments could potentially improve “human condition” the government shouldn’t “own” our cells because the individual should still have the right to decide whether they want their cells to be used for medical and scientific purposes.
ReplyDeleteIrem G.
As an individual i believe that an individuals personal rights should not in any case be violated even when it is for the greater good of the society. That human's cells should not be used without proper permission and consent of the donor. Although i am in favor of helping the medical progress by donating cells for the further research, i still believe that no actions involving such should be taken without proper written permission.
ReplyDeleteEven if permission is required, even after that medical advancements can take place, the only visible difference would be that more focus would be put on the individual and his/her benefits without overlooking the society as a whole, hence the purpose would still be served either way. Considering Henrietta Lacks situation, her family as individuals to the society could have had financial benefits if informed about the involuntary donation. After having had permission and having proceeded on the medical research post permission the same advancements could have been visible.
Therefore i believe that individual privacy and rights should
not in any ways be overlooked for the good of society.
Manya K.
Once a human being is born and is giving an identity they have the rights to control their body. The cells are part of a persons body which means that they belong to them and they have control of what they want to do with the cells.
ReplyDeleteIf the person wants to give the cells and then take them back they have the rights to do so because the government can own a house, but it cant own a human being. Every time an operation needs to be done the person should sign to give permission or not give permission to remove or not remove any parts of their body. So myself as an individual, I consider my cells to be mine, I own them, government or society have no control over my body or anything in it.
Cristina C.
The HeLa cell line has been used in several scientific researches and has made great advances in the scientific and medical world. However, using the owner's cells without considering her opinion, nor rewarding her for the donation is unfair in many ways. An individual has to have the right to decide to do an action. However, Henrietta Lacks was never given the permission for the use of her cells for scientific research. No matter for what purpose they are used, even if they are for the benefit of the society, we should consider first her opinion. Furthermore, an individual's cells are part of that person's propriety, which makes it even more immoral to make use of her cells without her consent. That is why I believe that we, as an individual, "own" our own cells, and we have the rights to accept or decline doing an action.
ReplyDeleteYeri C.
I believe that the cells we have should be our own, and therefore if any cells are extracted from our body we should have the right to obtain at least a part of any financial benefits to be gained from said cells. If the cells in our bodies belonged to the government, they could put us through any experimentation operation or procedure that we do not want, when our cells are as much ours as our feet or arms. In fact, is should not even have been legal to make so many discoveries from Lacks’ cells and not give any of the profit from these discoveries to her family. If anyone has particular, unusual cells, they should be given the choice of whether or not to donate some, without being forced.
ReplyDeleteMatildeT C.
I believe that since cells are what make up our bodies and our bodies belong to us, a person’s cells should belong to them. They contain information which makes us who we are, as a person physically as well as mentally. Of course Lack’s immortal cells contributed to scientific research, but it is not morally or humanly right to just take them without permission of the person or their family in Lack’s case. A person should be able to decide for themselves if they want or not to donate a part of them to medical or scientific research. They should not be forced to do anything with their own body, it goes against human rights.
ReplyDeleteSarah M.
I believe that individual should own our cells because these cells are belongs to our body. In other words, these cells are ours and we have a right to choose whether to corporate to government for medical improvement or not. And I could say this to dead body as well. Government require the permission from his or her family in order to use his or her cells. I think this is a basic human right to choose what we want or what we don't want. In other words, no one, even government, can not force them to corporate this medical improvement.
ReplyDeleteKonomi U.
Henrietta Lacks and her immortal cells have been used many years after she has died and her family was not told. This brings up issues about the property of people's cells. Cells are a part of our body. We can make them grow and be healthy or we can hurt them. We have complete control over them--not the government. Therefore, in situations like this, the patient should be asked if they are willing to contribute to science by giving them the use of their cells. The person who provides the cells would also get part of the financial gain from the discovery.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the government were to own people's cells, there would be a privacy issue. The government would be able to do anything they want with your cells and not tell the owner of the cell about it. In addition, the government would get all the financial achievements from something that they didn't grow and take care of.
Elisa R.
Henrietta Lacks unwillingly donated her cells from her cancerous tumor. George Otto Gey cultured her cells to create the HeLa cell line. A HeLa cell is a cell type in an immortal cell line that is used for medical research. They are immortal because they can divide an unlimited number of times in a laboratory cell culture. Henrietta Lacks cells were used to make scientific discoveries without her permission or rewarding her family. Even though she was dead, her family should have been able to decide what happens to her cells. Her case caused a lot of debate. I believe that as an individual you should “own” your own cells, and the government/society should not have the right to use your cells unless you donate your cells. Peoples’ cells are the property of an individual even if the individual is dead. Even though peoples’ cells could contribute to major discoveries, it should still be the individuals’ decision or the family. If the individual or family donates they should be rewarded for their donation.
ReplyDeleteDaniela F.
I believe that everyone should get to “own” their cells. Henrietta Lack’s immortal cells were used without her consent and I think that’s not right. Even though she is dead, her immortal cells are still part of her. I think that the government shouldn’t be taking cells of dead people for research. it seems like a violation of your property. Just because you are dead doesn’t mean that you or your family get to loose everything you had.
ReplyDeletein the case the government want your cells they should ask for them first. Cells are part of a person’s body and they shouldn’t be used for different purposes without the consent of the patient. I think that cells are like some organs which can be donated only with the consent of the donor.
Arturo S.
Like I’ve said for every blog post so far, I believe that every person should have a choice in what is done with anything that is theirs. I’m against actions that are against individual’s wills even though the Supreme Court of California case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California ruled that a person’s tissue and cells are not their property. I know that Henrietta Lacks’ cells have helped with scientific and medical issues but neither Henrietta Lacks or her family gave George Gey permission to take her cells during surgery. If people’s cells belonged to the government, a part of that person wouldn’t belong to them anymore which is ridiculous. Every person should have control of their body parts and their body as a whole. I’m sure that if someone had cells that interested a scientist or a doctor, the patient would most likely donate their cells to the cause. Otherwise, the patient’s cells should not be commercialized without their permission.
ReplyDeleteVera S.
Like I’ve said for every blog post so far, I believe that every person should have a choice in what is done with anything that is theirs. I’m against actions that are against individual’s wills even though the Supreme Court of California case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California ruled that a person’s tissue and cells are not their property. I know that Henrietta Lacks’ cells have helped with scientific and medical issues but neither Henrietta Lacks or her family gave George Gey permission to take her cells during surgery. If people’s cells belonged to the government, a part of that person wouldn’t belong to them anymore which is ridiculous. Every person should have control of their body parts and their body as a whole. I’m sure that if someone had cells that interested a scientist or a doctor, the patient would most likely donate their cells to the cause. Otherwise, the patient’s cells should not be commercialized without their permission.
ReplyDeleteVera S.
Personally, I believe that we should own our own cells. Henrietta Lacks was a african-american woman was the unwitting source of cells (from her cancerous tumor) which were cultured by George Otto Gey to create the first known human immortal cell line for medical research also known as the HeLa cell line. Therefore, it had a beneficial result from the experiment. However, the scientists did not get any permission from her. Even though this helped the science to improve, it is not a etiquette to use one person's body without permission. This could take place to a family, religious and racial conflict.
ReplyDeleteByung H.
In my opinion, we should all "own" our own cells. If scientists or anyone wanted to use them for scientific or medical development of some kind, the owner should be asked for permission. If that person in not alive, his/her family should be asked for permission to use this person's cells. A person should have the right to own his/her cells because they are part of his/her body. If this person were to allow his/her cells to be used for experiments, he/she should be able to get some part of financial gain if the experiment were to succeed. Therefore, I believe that a person should be able to "own" his/her own cells and be able to make the decision on whether or not to donate his/her cells.
ReplyDeleteKaren D.
I think this is all too much of a “fuss”. I believe society should have the right to own your cells as long as you are given a choice and they use it strictly for medicinal purposes and technological advancements. If the person is dead it does not really matter. There is not really any other real purpose to the physical body. Even if the person is not dead, if a tumor is extracted, that tumor will not be used for anything either. Also, I do not think the patient should receive any money for donating his or her cells. The scientist that helped with the HeLa cells did not have any patents. He wanted to contribute to science. I think this should be the real point. Money will only lead to problems and it will defeat the purpose of donating cells. The potential of this is huge. There could be future advancements in science that could revolutionize the world of science.
ReplyDeleteDaniel M.
I firmly believe human being should own their cells. Performing cell extraction from any human being should only be done if the patient has previously agreed to take part in the experiment. If the patient has no problem with taking part in in it, big advantages could be acquired such as probable medical discoveries and deep scientific research. Even though this advantages can be gained, it should not be perfomed as a regular action or process, as it would not be fair for those who do not want to donate their cells for medical purposes. Lack ´s cells were known worldwide for the help it gave in order to conclude many discoveries. Cell extraction should not be perfomed as a regular process, it should only be done if the patient completely agrees on taking part in the experiment.
ReplyDeleteDiego M - C
The case of Henrietta Lacks is really controversial because her privacy is violated. Every person in this world owns their cells because its a part of their body, just as a leg. The case of Mrs. Lacks is not exemplary because the cells were extracted without consent.
ReplyDeleteIf the government or some institution needs those cells, then the person should be asked for permission and maybe payed for giving those cells, if those cells are an important part of a discovery. If this is the case the person should give the cells even if its a violation of privacy.
Alex P.
Do you as an individual "own" your cells or does society / government "own" your cells?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion i think that everything you do with your body is your choice and more specifically everything in your body is your own. So the fact that someone would think that government should own your cells is absurd, ones cells should be your own even if they are dead. Henrietta Lacks immortal cells were used without her consent which i think is wrong. Even though she's dead the cells are still hers and without her consent they should not be used or experimented with. I think that if the government were to research your cells without your consent its an invasion of privacy and that should not be legal. Even though they got a benefit from the research, it was not the right way to do it and i think that next time they should ask for consent before hand.
Camila M.
In my opinion, we should consider our cells as our own "property". However, if anyone wants to use their own cells as long as people give permission to join the experiment I think it will be great and consider as legal. But what I dont agree is in the situation when people is forced to extract their cells in order to have make a medical dicoveries. If I was the situation I think I should give the cells so they can make medical improvements to cure the cancer
ReplyDeleteChen
HeLa Cell
ReplyDeleteI believe everyone owns their own cells and that the government has no right in deciding whether you do something with your cells. The government should not be able to use another person's cells without their permission. One of America's most famous sayings is "It is a free country" therefore, no one should no person should be forced to give some samples of themselves to improve medical science against their will. It is the person's whether or whether not to use themselves as guinea pigs to help solve a medical condition. It is a good idea to donate some samples of cells to help find cures for diseases. However, the government should not 'control' someones body and/ or force them to do something they do not want to do.
Maia D.
I think that everyone deserves and should be able to own their own cells. The government should not get to choose or decide what we should do with our cells, let alone use someone cells without their permition. I feel that it is a right we are born with, the right of freedom a freedom that lets us dicide what to do with our cells. The government should never be able to dicide to use someones cells for medical science if they are not willing partisipants. Medical science is important but unethical if the person with the medical condition is not willing to be tested on. Donating your body to science and or giving some samples of your cells is important and way better then just leaving your body in a cementary to rott. We benifit alot from it! but the government should never be able to decide who will be the guinea pig!
ReplyDeleteAnna .B