70 Years of “HeLa” Cells Debate Ends in Settlement For Henrietta Lacks Family
70 years after Henrietta Lacks’ cervical cancer treatments touched off a medical revolution, without her consent, some closure for the living relatives for a still raging debate over patient’s rights.
Henrietta Lacks’ living relatives reached a settlement late Monday with the multi-billion-dollar biotechnology company they sued seeking compensation for its routine use of regenerative cells that were taken from her decades ago without her consent, according to a statement released by the family’s lawyers.
The terms of the settlement with Massachusetts-based Thermo Fisher Scientific will remain confidential. But the success of the legal strategy increases the likelihood that this becomes the first in a series of complaints seeking compensation for, and control of Lacks’ cells. Her “HeLa” cells were the world’s first capable of replicating outside the body.
The family is represented jointly by attorney Ben Crump, who is known nationally for representing Black victims of police violence, and attorney Chris Seeger, who has led some of the most significant class action lawsuits in U.S. history. They plan to announce the agreement at a news conference in Baltimore on Tuesday, which would have been Lacks’ 103rd birthday.
“The parties are pleased that they were able to find a way to resolve this matter outside of court and will have no further comment about the settlement,” said Crump and Seeger, who filed the case on the family’s behalf roughly two years ago.
News of the agreement followed settlement talks that were overseen Monday by U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson.
The Lacks family’s lawsuit raised a question that had lingered for 70 years, since cells from Lacks, a Turner Station wife and mother, were taken while she received cervical cancer treatment in a segregated Johns Hopkins Hospital ward: Who owns those tiny pieces of her?
Lacks’ relatives argued her cells belong to her, and companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific must pay for the privilege to use them in research and product development.
Thermo Fisher Scientific officials previously said Lacks’ descendants waited too long to take legal action and have argued the company shouldn’t be singled out for using HeLa cells without the family’s consent, because, it says, countless other companies around the world do the same thing.
Lacks’ 1951 cancer treatment did not work, and she succumbed to the disease within a few months of her diagnosis.
Around the time of her death, Hopkins researchers discovered the cells they had secretly sampled from their patient’s cervix were capable of regenerating outside the body. They shared Lacks’ miraculous cells with other scientists for free, and they have since been used to develop the polio and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the world’s most common fertility treatment.
To the best of my understanding, there is no evidence that Lacks was harmed by the use of her medical waste, nor, AFAICT, is there any question of her having been given substandard treatment. If she had been offered $50 in exchange for the rights to conduct research on said medical waste, she almost certainly would have taken it, because it was literally less than worthless to her, and made valuable only by the expertise, efforts, and investments of others.
It’s not entirely clear to me what her value over replacement was. What percentage of cancers have the same ability to replicate indefinitely in vitro as hers? 90%? 10%? 1%? It’s a shame that she died so young, of course, but the idea that her family is entitled to any sort of compensation is insane, and emblematic of how far off the rails this race hysteria has gone.
Also, was there supposed to be a link in this post?Report
Yeah, but the whole “without her consent” thing hits different in the current year than in 1951.
Back then, it was just some more medical waste that had some properties that made it useful for medical research.
Today? How much profit has medical science raked in due to this property taken without consent? How much of this profit is she therefore entitled to?Report
and how important is it for us white folk to have a really good example of How Much We’re Sorry About The Whole Racism Thing?Report
Ha.
No seriously that’s funny.
Morbidly, insanely, stupefyingly funny.
Tell me, do the Tuskeegee Institute test subjects families deserve compensation? Of the descendants of black slaves who were experiments on by white doctors without anesthetic?
Or this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354806/
Or are you so callous that you just don’t care, regardless of race or gender?Report
BB can’t stand the fact of peons of any race getting something for their exploitation. All belongs to the corporations and entrepreneurs. A human whose body is harvested is nothing more than an organic mine for the great people.Report
I would absolutely support compensation for any surviving subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis study who were harmed by withholding of diagnosis or proper treatment, and possibly to their children; probably not to their grandchildren, though I’m open to non-stupid arguments about why they should. There are tricky questions about how long these kinds of debts should persist, as the indirect harm to subsequent generations is greatly attenuated over time. Should I get compensation from the British on account of my partial Irish ancestry? I don’t think there’s any reasonable argument that I should.
The key difference here is that the Tuskegee subjects were harmed by the research, and Henrietta Lacks was not. I’m not an oncologist, but I’m pretty sure that leaving more cancerous cells in her body would, if anything, have worsened her chances of survival. There seems to be a general consensus, even among those pushing for “compensation,” that she was treated according to the standard of care of the time.
Well what about all those black people who were harmed by unethical research? My evaluation of a particular case depends on the actual facts of the case. If the facts are different, my evaluation is different. It seems that you have a more narrative-driven approach, which I find somewhat worrying, given that you claim to be a scientist.Report
Informed consent violations don’t depend on the race of the patient unless there is a practice of obtaining informed consent from white patients and not bothering with black patients. I don’t know whether that claim was involved in this case, which, if true, would be pretty much inexcusable. A hospital might well pay far more than a case is “worth,” see next paragraph, to avoid airing such dirty laundry.
That angle aside, how much injury Henrietta Lacks suffered would go to the question of damages, not liability. You can’t take a pair of socks out of my sock drawer without my consent, even if I would have sold them to you for 20 bucks if you had asked. And you couldn’t take them even if you offered me 50 bucks and I refused. Would I sue about it? No, not even when I could do it myself and not pay a lawyer, but someone else’s mileage may vary.Report
In this day and age of data harvesting, the idea that trivial things like bodily fluids can accrue financial value, and that others need your consent to derive that value shouldn’t be debatable.Report