In the Afterword, Skloot summarizes the main issues and legislation surrounding the
collection and use of human tissue samples. Using her summary as an outline, examine
the evolution of laws concerning tissue research and write a persuasive paragraph on the
issue of whether or not people should be given legal ownership of, and/or control over,
their tissues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe use of tissue throughout the medical world plays a huge and important role for scientists across the world. If given the legal ownership of, or control over, their tissues then it would be a poor decision for scientists. People think that when "you go to the doctor to have an appendectomy, tonsillectomy, or any other kind of ectomy" (Skloot 315) then that stuff that was removed or used is later on just trashed but in reality that stuff that belongs to you is kept and later on is used in hospitals, laboratories and used by doctors and scientists. The people do have a right to know what they are doing with their bodies but they should not have to exactly know what kind of experiments they are doing with them because in reality they just would not understand what exactly it is they are doing. The patients not knowing what the tissue is used for will cause them to say no since they do not know how important tissue research really is. By donating tissue to scientists across the country will help them treat and prevent new diseases that can be harmful to humans. A person donating their tissue will save many lives and will be more useful than making the doctors return the tissue to the patient. Tissue research is an important role and the patients should not get ownership for something that can be used for something more helpful and useful.
ReplyDeleteHi Bryan, which laws specifically support your point of view?
ReplyDeleteThe evolution of laws concerning tissue research has changed dramatically during the years but still do they give the right of the people, the patients, to decide whether or not they will give consent for the doctors to perform different types of experiments and do further research in return for the findings of diseases in order to prevent them. Before in the 1950's, the informed consent form that the patient would sign has changed a lot between the years. Now they have more information on what they are to perform on the patient, on the consent. The law that they, the doctors, have the right to perform different experiments has been explained thoroughly now than before and the patient now sees what exactly they are to do with their tissue, for example.
ReplyDeleteThe Protection of Human Rights Act of 1978 calls for researchers to respect the rights of individuals to determine what is done to their bodies. Then, in Moore’s appeal in 1988 the judges ruled “a patient must have ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues” (Skloot 205). As Brian said, withholding informed consent impedes a patients control over their tissue samples. Research done without informed consent is a gross misuse of power by the doctors and a violation of privacy for the patient. Since the 80’s the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ("Common Rule") was put into action in 1991, this act governs the treatment of humans as subjects in experimentation, preventing future abuses of power by the researchers.
ReplyDeleteFederal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ('Common Rule'). (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule/