Coerced consent is a sucker’s game
Western culture has a slightly different take on the rights of the individual versus the rights of society, compared to some of the more conservative Eastern cultures. Our culture believes that the individual’s rights may not be trampled under to serve the welfare of society. Each of us has inalienable rights that may not ignored – not unless we give our informed consent.
Aha. That is the crucial distinction. If you volunteer your body, your life, any part of you, because you are a generous and altruistic person looking to do something for your fellow man, that informed consent is something we can all applaud, appreciate and encourage. But what if you got “volunteered” without your knowledge or understanding? Do the ends justify the means?
Way back after the end of the second World War, civilized nations got together and became signatories to the Helsinki Declaration. In brief, this important human rights declaration said clinical trials using human subjects cannot – must not – be conducted without the informed consent of the human subjects participating in them. If you are a reader of history you will readily understand the need for this declaration at that dark moment in our recent past. Good intentions (?!) of the doctors conducting clinical trials at concentration camps was not the issue. They had no right to do their research, not when the subjects were prisoners that did not have a say in the matter. The ends do not justify the means.
HeLa Cells: The Lady Who Saved Thousands of Lives
Ever since I took up this peculiar hobby of reading hematology and oncology journals, I have come across citations of “HeLa cell lines” thousands of times. This cell line is the work-horse in thousands of lab studies, including leukemia research. I did not know then what I know now. “HeLa” stands for “Henrietta Lacks” – a very real cancer patient who lived and died 50 years ago under tragic circumstances. There is a fascinating article about her life and death and how her legacy lives on today in every cancer research lab in this country and elsewhere. Below is the link and several excerpts.
A Lasting Gift to Medicine That Wasn’t Really a Gift
By DENISE GRADY
New York Times
Published: February 1, 2010
Fifty years after Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in the “colored” ward at Johns Hopkins Hospital, her daughter finally got a chance to see the legacy she had unknowingly left to science.
The story began in January 1951, when Mrs. Lacks was found to have cervical cancer. She was treated with radium at Johns Hopkins, the standard of care in that day, but there was no stopping the cancer. Her doctor had never seen anything like it. Within months, her body was full of tumors, and she died in excruciating pain that October. She was 31 and left five children, the youngest just a year old. She had been a devoted mother, and the children suffered terribly without her.
Neither Mrs. Lacks nor any of her relatives knew that doctors had given a sample of her tumor to Dr. George Gey, a Hopkins researcher who was trying to find cells that would live indefinitely in culture so researchers could experiment on them. Before she came along, his efforts had failed. Her cells changed everything: they multiplied like crazy and never died.
A cell line called HeLa (for Henrietta Lacks) was born. Those immortal cells soon became the workhorse of laboratories everywhere. HeLa cells were used to develop the first polio vaccine, they were launched into space for experiments in zero gravity and they helped produce drugs for numerous diseases, including Parkinson’s, leukemia and the flu. By now, literally tons of them have been produced.
Dr. Gey did not make money from the cells, but they were commercialized. Now they are bought and sold every day the world over, and they have generated millions in profits.
The Lacks family never got a dime. They were poor, with little education and no health insurance, and some had serious physical or mental ailments. But they didn’t even know that tissue had been taken or that HeLa cells even existed until more than 20 years after Mrs. Lacks’s death. And they found out only by accident.
When they learned that their mother’s cells had saved lives, the family felt proud. But they also felt confused, a bit frightened, used and abused. It had never occurred to anyone to ask permission to take their mother’s tissue, tell them that her cells had changed scientific history or even to say thank you. And certainly no one had ever suggested that they deserved a share of the profits.
Some of the Lackses later gave blood to Hopkins researchers, thinking they were being tested for cancer, when really the scientists wanted their genetic information
The bounds of fairness, respect and simple courtesy all seem to have been breached in the case of the Lacks family. The gulf between them and the scientists — race, class, education — was enormous and made communication difficult.
Patients today don’t really have any more control over removed body parts than Mrs. Lacks did. Most people just obediently sign the forms.
Which is as it should be, many scientists say, arguing that Mrs. Lacks’s immortal cells were an accident of biology, not something she created or invented, and were used to benefit countless others. Most of what is removed from people is of no value anyway, and researchers say it would be too complicated and would hinder progress if ownership of such things were assigned to patients and royalties had to be paid.
So far, the courts have sided with scientists, even in a case in the 1980s in which a leukemia patient’s spleen and other tissues turned out to be a biomedical gold mine — for his doctor. The patient, John Moore, sued his doctor after discovering that the doctor had filed for a patent on his cells and certain proteins they made, and had created a cell line called Mo with a market value estimated at $3 billion. Mr. Moore ultimately lost before the California Supreme Court.
What Say You?
This issue is not going to go away. Researchers and patient advocates like me can “sell” clinical trial volunteerism all we want. But unless and until you decide what you want to do, the process cannot move forward. Without your informed consent the process should not go forward. No one thought to ask Henrietta or her family for permission to use her biological samples in research. The same lack of respect for individual rights permeats much of our research culture today. There is a severe lack of RESPECT.
How many researchers bother to thank the patients who volunteered in their clinical trials?
I raised this question with my absolute favorite top-of-the-list-good-guys at a Mayo Clinic symposium a couple of years ago. To my surprise and chagrin, I got shot down! Thank the patients?! What a bizarre and outlandish idea! Never been done! Researchers thank funding agencies, colleagues that participated in the work, statisticians that put the right perspective (Ahem. Dare I say ‘spin’?) on the results, the lady down the hall that did the manuscript typing. But who stops to thank patients? Next thing you know some of the more uppity patients will be asking to have some say in their own health-care.
Thank you, Mrs Henrietta Lacks. Please accept the belated but sincere thanks of your fellow cancer patients.
19 comments on "Without Your Consent"
Hah, great stuff. I read an article about Henrietta Lacks the other day in an on-line news article. I found it interesting that researchers used cell from a known cancer patient. One would think that “those” types of cells would be shunned for anything other than cervical cancer research at the time.
Thanks for your great article.
Scott
It’s interesting because, in the social sciences, this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable (at least, not on paper). I’ve helped write some ethics codes. Not all social scientists are happy about it, but we are no longer permitted to study, borrow, or steal from other people’s lives, in the old ways. Increasingly, research is collaborative. Anthropologists don’t just thank their informants; they organize collaborative research teams, and work together. Communities have the right to say no, to being invaded by researchers. Among many exemplary researchers, for example, are Ann Fienup Riordan and Julie Cruickshank, who work with Indigenous people in Alaska and Yukon. When I started my research in Nunavut, I had to get a scientific research license granting approval from the Inuit communities involved. Can you imagine a medical researcher needing formal approval from patients? Most of us are not qualified to do actual lab work, so it’s not a direct parallel. But it does bear thinking about, since the rules and guidelines are changing. Nuremberg was a chilling turning-point for medical research.
When we sign the informed concent form, we are really not informed at all.
Yes, we know we are human lab rats. But every cell in my body is owned by ME and ME alone.
If you want to make money out of my cells, I want a cut of that. And how do I know if my cells were (are) sold for profit?
Not in my lifetime will I know.
So I’m a potential millionaire! I knew there was a silver lining to this
cancer thing, when my doc told me I had the “good” cancer, I had no idea.
Whenever Tom signs the consent from MDAnderson for entry into a trial, there is another part of the consent that he has always agreed to also. It is the part where he gives “double” the blood work and half of it goes to research. I know for the FCR trial, half of Tom’s blood work and BMB tissues were at MDAnderson and the other half were under a logged number, (not his name), at UCSD. It was very clear that he was signing over his blood work, genetics etc., that were taken during that trial for research at any other time in the future and most likely not always just for CLL. It is interesting that under the FCR trial, we were told that once Tom’s blood left Houston, no one would ever know the “individual” that it came from…Just age, dates, etc. Yet—then I found out through emailing certain CLL Drs., that Tom’s blood work COULD be found through just 2 or 3 people. All of his blood work was double checked at MDAnderson and San Diego for all tests. FISH, BMB, blood. It was nice in way, because the Zap70, CD38, mutational status and other important tests were shown positive by both labs.
I am not sure where the extra blood work went during the Revlimid trial, but I feel with a little effort, I could find out. I would imagine it went to San Diego also. I am sure that there is much we do not know about what we sign. I know it is legally written by very good attorney’s and researcher’s. Who has a lawyer with them when they are at the Clinic? We don’t.
I was told that Tom’s blood work and tests would be in literature for years. Every time I read something on the FCR trial and the 300 patient’s involved and outcomes from the trial, I know that one of those is Tom. Has he ever been officially thanked for being a rat in FCR and Revlimid/Rituximab? Actually, yes. Not anything official, but Dr. Kipp’s and Dr. Keating and staff has acknowledged his participation and drive to stay on trial even when having bad side effects.
I agree with your sentiments that this is a very GRAY area of medicine and needs to be watched closely. Thank you for this article.
Jenny Lou Park
Charlie
I am a CLL patient and read the posting here quite frequently. This is my first time posting and I find it very interesting that the scientists here think that Ms. Lacks’ family should not have been compensated.
However, I just read the following article today; ‘Medical groups assail patenting of human genes’. The case involves a Utah company, Myriad Genetics, and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which in 1994 isolated the DNA sequence for the BRCA1 and later the BRCA2 genes, mutations of which can greatly increase a woman’s chance of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The company intends to patent and sell not only the test but the DNA sequneced from a cell line.
Certainly if a company can patent and sell genes which exists in all of us, The Lacks should have had the rights to the cells from their mother’s tumors. It’s ok for big business but not ok for the small, uneducated person. Ethical behavoir should exists on both sides of the coin. Certainly patenting this process will hamper progress in finding the cure for cancer. In the end I have discovered from being a patient for the last five years, it all about the almighty buck.
It is odd that western culture outlaws the sale of human organs while third worlders are coerced into selling a kidney for three grand. Under these ethical constraints, it is no wonder that our tissues are exploited for commercial use. Is it right or fair, I don’t know? One way or another you can bet that in the future, the only ones who profit will be lawyers.
Bob
May I add a parallel concern for organ donation? It had never occurred to me that there could be a ‘for profit’ organization receiving organs until I was asked to specifically consent to it.
I made a copy of this article. Thank you for keeping us inform. I agree with Patricia.
Stay well,
Monique
Hello,
One of the comments drew attention to the fact that most of us patients don’t even get a chance to read what we are asked to sign; too true. It is quite concerning, because sometimes the forms are very wide-ranging as to what they cover. It could therefore be claimed, with some justification, that concent very rarely is informed.
Thanks for drawing attention to this, Chaya.
Be well,
Mette
Excellent article, Chaya! It is worth a good discussion & I agree with you that informed consent should be very important to all of us.
Be well!
I read that organ donors usable organs are used whenever possible. I also saw a program years ago that showed tissue from organ donors being processed and sold. Who thinks about that when marking as a donor on their driver’s licenses. But then are people with cancer considered as good donors? I don’t know. I could donate blood because it is beyond 5 years. All the Red Cross wants to know from me is if I was given blood clotting products in 1996. I don’t know and my records from that time look bigger than the Seattle Yellow Pages.
Also on informed consent:
At Ohio State’s James Center we were given adequate time to read consent papers for further research using DNA samples and extra blood collected. We were not rushed. We also had questions answered. The same was true at the University of Indiana.
I had samples collected and sent to Myriad as a breast cancer survivor. I received a written report back that indicated I have an, as yet unseen, aberration on the BRACA 1 gene. My mom, as a living relative who survived, was offered free testing. I encouraged Mom to participate. Terry’s oncologist did the leg work of getting the test kit sent to her physician.
However, when it came time for me to know if my mom also carried the genetic aberration I was told privacy laws restricted the information. She had moved to a different state. I went several rounds with my mom. She is 79 and not inclined to fight for much or remember details. I may have to accompany her to her physician’s office so she can sign the consent and I can take a copy back to the oncologist here. I do want to know because I have 3 younger sisters, a daughter and 6 granddaughters.
If my mom showed the same thing that my tests showed, the lab will have already benefited by recording a new place on the BRACA 1 gene that may or may not be important to know statistically, for early breast cancer. In our case and my mom’s sister’s, who did not survive, the cancer appeared between ages 30 and 46.
Had I known what a delay it would cause, I would have made sure the consent was signed before she was tested. There is time and I will find the answer sooner or later.
Thanks Chaya!
As a patient who was part of an experiment in 1948 and asked to contribute tissue/blood and records for follow up studies for years, I have to say I side with the Lacks’s. I was given 3000 rads of radiation and my parents were told, as were the other 9999 children’s parents, that this was a new treatment. I was just 3 years old. most of us had enlarged adenoids. 5000 of us were at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, and 5000 at Johns Hopkins. In the 1940’s if a good doctor told you something was a better treatment, safer and so on you would probably buy into it.
Truth was this was an experiment. One of hundred conducted on US citizens, , without their knowledge or any real consent. In each experiment patients were either told they had a disease or that this was a treatment. The US congress did an investigation during the Clinton Administration, under Hazel Oleary and found the government had done no harm since informed consent was not really possible to achieve. I imagine not, not when the stated ‘facts’ were distorted to begin with. The Ethics advisors to congress during those hearings are professors at Hopkins. Their book on medical ethics is still used in medical schools today.
Mrs. Lacks was part of that group of citizens who were experimented on. Some were indeed riddled with terminal cancer, but many were told they were and were not.
I did receive a ‘thank you’ note from one of the follow up scientists after over 50 years when he could no longer get funding from the government to continue his studies. Those studies had supported him and many others for years. I have not been able to get one penny of medical aid, not one offer of help, nothing. The doctors who led those experiments were granted immunity as part of the paper clip project. German scientists, who had worked in the concentration camps were granted full access to US hospitals to continue what they started. This went on from after WW11 till the early 70’s.
Probably the worst part of our journey was not being believed for nearly 50 years and having diagnoses missed or ignored due to denial of what we had been exposed to. The consolation prize is supposedly that we have all helped the advancement of medicine. Somehow I am not terribly comforted by that alone. But I do feel I’ve paid my debt to society.
I always wonder what the extra tubes of blood I now agree to give will really be used for. Doctors and hospitals and drug companies benefit too when we do allow ourselves to be in studies. While it’s true that now we frequently get the treatment for no charge, it pales by comparison to the money that is made by those other parties and the credit that they get. Not to mention the travail of being treated in many cases. Especially in studies where a treatment is given to prove it lesser to another. I don’t have any answers, but I can relate to the woman who had her cells sold for profit without her knowledge and with her family. Unlike her however I wonder what may surface in my children and grandchildren – not the legacy I would have chosen for them. But no one asked me.
How to determine if a doctor who seems wholeheartedly to believe in a treatment is really convinced? I’m sure that the doctor who referred me for ‘treatment’ felt he had been given the best advice from his own hospital. He was not a researcher, but a good pediatrician; well loved and respected by many. And he was with the ‘best’ hospital in Chicago at that time. A hospital where many new an promising treatments had emerged, such as the use of insulin for diabetes, the gastroscope, the incubator, cholesterol’s effect on heart disease, and later polio vaccine. why doubt his advice. divining rods anyone?
beth fillman
How different is the “theft” of cells for scientific creativity when compared to the theft of charater or personality traits in the sphere of literary creativity?
namara
When I was first taken on as a CLL patient at Barts Hospital London, I was asked to sign papers agreeing that I would allow them to use experimental drugs in my treatment in the future. Although I signed this, what choice was there? I have no idea what that signing might actually involve and really I am completely in their hands,I have to trust them. The only real ‘informed’ about it is what I read here on CLL Topics. Thanks again Chaya.
Molly –can you possibly ask for a copy of the papers to review calmly now under new light and guidance? You don’t want to take unnecessary risk, unless you can evaluate your potential rewards…
Bethcat– your story, which I will never forget, illustrates why I always err on the conservative side. Today treatments or drugs are deemed safe and some close to modern panacea. But in the near future they may be debunked or side effects come to light. Like you said, for the most part, doctors have wonderfully altruistic motives, they want to help their patients, and use current arsenals to do it. It’s up to us to question, question, question, read, read, read. When you feel right about it, dive in and don’t look back. But sometimes all you can allow yourself is a toe in the water– we have to listen to our guts after doing all the homework.
Chaya–fascinating article. I had no idea on this history. Thanks to you and to Mrs. Lacks.
First I would like to thank Chaya for all the time and effort she devotes to CLL Topics. I agree that it is only common courtesty to thank patients for participating in medical research.
I too found the story of Henrietta Lacks to be fascinating. As for the issue of not obtaining her consent,the doctors and researchers did not violate the standards that were in practice at that time. It probably seemed perfectly reasonable to them to use tissue that would have been discarded as medical waste in a effort to find a cure for cancer. Obviously attitudes have evolved and changed since then and we now consider informed consent to be the acceptable standard.
There is an article about Henrietta Lacks on the Smithsonian Magazine website. Towards the end of a very long list of comments is a touching entry written by David Greene,grandson of Dr George Gey,who received the tissue that was removed from Mrs Lacks. He writes “My grandfather carried the cells all over the world in tubes,in a modified fly fishing case (he loved fishing),next to his body in his upper suit pocket to keep them warm. He GAVE the cells to any research lab interested in cancer research.” His entry leaves no doubt that his grandparents were dedicated researchers who devoted their lives to science in the hope of helping people.
Although failure to obtain consent would be considered a serious ethical violation today,I do not believe that it is fair to judge the actions of sixty years ago, by well intentioned people, by today’s standards.
As to the issue of who owns the profits,I have no idea how to address that concern. However,without the potential for profit who would be willing to invest the money necessary to build,equip and staff research facilities and develop new treatments and drugs? When my nephew worked as a research scientist at Oxford University in the University’s Department of Pharmacology lab some of the funds for research came from pharmaceutical companies. Obviously these companies benefited from the information derived from this research,but so did everyone else as the results of their research is considered public domain and is available to anyone.
I think it is accurate to say that we have all benefited in some way(s)from medical research,so why wouldn’t we be willing to “pay it forward” without expecting payment for any contribution we are able to make to medical research?
I am aware that we owe a debt of gratitude to all those patients who have made medical research possible. Yesterday I completed a 4 dose course of treatment with rituxan. I went to my first treatment very conscious of the people who died whilst participating in the clinical trials of this drug. Without their enormous contribution I would not be sitting here today with a completely normal CBC and a huge reduction in the size of my lymph nodes.
When I graduated from nursing school in 1969,my first assignment was to a unit that treated patients with kidney disease. I was at a big teaching hopital in the north of england and we were one of the first hospitals to do kidney transplants and have a dialysis unit. During the short time I spent working there I took care of a kidney transplant patient on the night he had just had surgery. I also took care of a young man who had rejected his transplanted kidney. I have never forgotten those patients whose only chance of a normal life was a kidney transplant and who,at that time,had so little hope of getting one.
I found it genuinely distressing when I realised that I was no longer eligible to be an organ donor (you have to have been free of cancer for 5 years). Although I can no longer contribute through organ donation,I would be honored to contribute in any other way that I am able. If scientists feel that my leukemia cells would be of help in developing a cure for this disease,they are welcome to take as many of them as they want. After all,I certainly don’t need them!
Pam Peterson
Bravo Pam. This is a well considered and beautifully written comment. The world can use a lot more people like you. Salute.
One of the other comments had to deal with organ and blood donation. I strongly urge you to check with your local Red Cross before you become a blood donor. Local guidelines may be skimpy on who is eligible to donate, but I would be surprised if your blood products are safe for donation.
That said, please “recruit” as many of your friends and family as you can to become frequent blood donors. My daughter and son-in-law are both regular donors. They saw with their own eyes how many bags of blood products PC went through during his transplant. If not our friends and families, who can be more motivated to “pay forward” for the times when you may need a bit of caring help from some stranger who bothered to donate blood?
Dear Chaya
Thank you so much for your response. Coming from you I consider your remarks the utmost compliment…………..Pam
Leave a Comment