SOLVED8

I just need help with the conclusion. I put it in bold. My entire essay is completed again I just need help with the conclusion.

 

Henrietta Lacks, an underprivileged and uneducated African American woman, unknowingly emerged as one of the most influential individuals in the annals of medical history. In 1951, when she was just 31 years old, she tragically passed away from cervical cancer at a hospital in Baltimore. Before she passed away, a specimen of her tumor cells was collected without her approval. These cells, now referred to as HeLa cells, exhibited an extraordinary capacity to flourish under lab conditions, a characteristic not previously seen in human cells. Consequently, they were shared globally for scientific study, contributing to revolutionary findings in cell biology, immunizations, in vitro fertilization, and cancer therapies. However, Henrietta Lacks did not give permission for her cells to be used in research. This essay intends to explore the ethical issues associated with her situation.

 

There is no doubt that the doctors committed a violation of Henrietta Lacks’s rights when they took her cells without first obtaining her informed consent in the instance discussed. According to Zimmer (2013), informed consent is a fundamental principle of medical ethics, which places an emphasis on the freedom of individuals to make independent decisions regarding their own bodies and medical treatments without interference. Lacks was never given the opportunity to grant explicit agreement for the use of her cells in research, which constitutes a clear breach of her autonomy and right to self-determination (Beauchamp, n.d.). Lacks’ cells were used in research. Because of this violation of her rights, the ethical complexity and injustices that are inherent in the case are brought into sharper focus.
 

The principle-based approach and the deontological approach are two key philosophical approaches that might be of use in decision-making situations that involve healthcare. According to Beauchamp and Childress’s explanation, the principle-based approach is founded on four fundamental principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (Zimmer, 2013). Deontology, on the other hand, is an approach that places an emphasis on adhering to moral principles and responsibilities, regardless of the consequences (Zimmer, 2013). In the context of the investigation into the case of Henrietta Lacks, the deontological method offers a helpful framework for examining the ethical consequences of the activities taken by the doctors.
 

The ethical dilemmas that lie beneath the surface of the case revolve around the concepts of informed consent, respect for autonomy, and the moral obligations that pertain to healthcare workers. In the context of deontology, the primary concern is the obligation of the medical professionals to seek informed consent prior to the utilization of Henrietta Lacks’s cells for the purpose of study (Beauchamp, n.d.). The inability to get her consent constitutes a blatant breach of this obligation, which brings to light the unethical nature of the activities taken by the doctors. The deontological approach emphasizes the significance of adhering to moral principles and duties throughout one’s life, regardless of the potential rewards or consequences that may be presented.
 

In this particular scenario, resolving the ethical difficulties includes giving informed consent the highest priority and respecting the autonomy of persons. When it comes to deontology, it is imperative that institutions and researchers make it a top priority to get the persons’ explicit agreement before using their biological samples for scientific reasons (Beauchamp, n.d.). Furthermore, in order to guarantee that informed consent is regularly gained and respected in medical research settings, it is necessary to establish laws and procedures. While this approach places an emphasis on the moral obligation to defend ethical standards and protect the rights of individuals, it does so even while pursuing the growth of scientific knowledge.
 

From a personal standpoint, I would not have chosen the same courses of action as the physicians who were involved in Ms. Lacks’s procedure. According to Zimmer (2013), it is unethical to use the cells of another person for scientific purposes without first obtaining their agreement. This practice also violates the individual’s right to autonomy. When conducting medical research, I would have made it a point to obtain the patient’s explicit approval before using Lacks’ cells (Beauchamp, n.d.). I am a firm believer that the concepts of autonomy and informed consent should be given the highest priority. It is necessary to uphold these values in order to guarantee the ethical conduct of research and to respect the rights and dignity of individuals.

 

Conclusion

The Henrietta Lacks case remains a poignant reminder of the ethical complexities surrounding medical research and the use of human biological materials. Her story underscores the necessity of upholding informed consent, protecting individuals’ rights, and establishing ethical guidelines in medical research to ensure that scientific progress respects the moral and legal boundaries that protect the dignity and autonomy of each patient.

 

Beauchamp, T. L. (n.d.). Meaning-and-Elements-of-Informed-Consent. Retrieved from [https://bioethics.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Beauchamp-TL-Faden-RR-Meaningand-Elements-of-Informed-Consent.pdf](https://bioethics.jhu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/Beauchamp-TL-Faden-RR-Meaning-and-Elements-of-InformedConsent.pdf

 

Zimmer, C. (2013, August 9). A family consents to a medical gift, 62 years later. *The Seattle Times.* [https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/a-family-consents-to-a-medical-gift-62-yearslater/](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/a-family-consents-to-a-medical-gift-62- years-later/

SCIENCE
HEALTH SCIENCE
NURSING
PHIL 222

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."