From 8c6872313db2f637bc1c08b94d43c9f4695f46df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Holden Rohrer Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 12:46:51 -0500 Subject: added essay three ugh --- markley/Makefile | 4 +- markley/essaythree.bib | 20 +++++++ markley/essaythree.tex | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 markley/essaythree.bib create mode 100644 markley/essaythree.tex (limited to 'markley') diff --git a/markley/Makefile b/markley/Makefile index 6911aaf..d67ae31 100644 --- a/markley/Makefile +++ b/markley/Makefile @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ .POSIX: -all: essayone.pdf essaytwo.pdf +all: essayone.pdf essaytwo.pdf essaythree.pdf %.pdf: %.tex %.bib pdflatex $*.tex @@ -9,4 +9,4 @@ all: essayone.pdf essaytwo.pdf pdflatex $*.tex clean: - rm -f essay{one,two}{-blx.bib,.{aux,bbl,bcf,blg,log,out,pdf,run.xml}} + rm -f essay{one,two,three}{-blx.bib,.{aux,bbl,bcf,blg,log,out,pdf,run.xml}} diff --git a/markley/essaythree.bib b/markley/essaythree.bib new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e2313a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/markley/essaythree.bib @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +@Book{Lacks, + Title="The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", + Author="Rebecca Skloot", + Year = 2010, + Publisher="Crown", + ISBN="978-1-4000-5217-2", +} +@Article{Nature, + URL="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02494-z", + Title="Henrietta Lacks: science must right a historical wrong", + Year = 2020, + Publisher="Nature", +} +@Article{Callaway, + URL="https://www.nature.com/news/hela-publication-brews-bioethical-storm-1.12689", + Year = 2013, + Publisher="Nature", + Author="Ewen Callaway", + Title="HeLa publication brews bioethical storm", +} diff --git a/markley/essaythree.tex b/markley/essaythree.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eca073b --- /dev/null +++ b/markley/essaythree.tex @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +\documentclass[12pt]{article} +\usepackage[letterpaper,headheight=15pt]{geometry} +\geometry{top=1.0in, bottom=1.0in, left=1.0in, right=1.0in} +\usepackage{setspace} +\doublespacing +\parskip=0pt plus 2pt minus 2pt +\usepackage{times} +\usepackage{fancyhdr} +\pagestyle{fancy} +\rhead{Rohrer \thepage} +\cfoot{} +\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} +\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt} +\setlength{\headsep}{0.5in}%top of page to bottom of header +\addtolength{\headsep}{-12pt}%max height of header +\usepackage{xcolor} +\usepackage{hyperref} +\usepackage[style=mla,backend=bibtex]{biblatex} +\defbibheading{bibliography}[\bibname]{\newpage\centerline{Works Cited}} +\hypersetup{ + colorlinks, + linkcolor={red!50!black}, + citecolor={blue!50!black}, + urlcolor={blue!80!black} +} +\addbibresource{essaythree.bib} +\begin{document} +{\parindent0pt\obeylines +Holden Rohrer +Markley +English Composition II +11 Oct 2020 +} +\centerline{\large\bfseries Henrietta Lacks and Medical Ethics} +\iffalse +Henrietta Lacks's immortal cells normalized the idea of in-vitro +research and in-vitro therapies. +Research on human biology is less haphazard and more... +Thesis: Generically, new research technology +Question: How did Henrietta Lacks's cells affect how I think about +disease or being healthy? +Answer: The image of "cells" being the thing that makes you unhealthy +makes germs more concrete? Lol no that's the germ theory of medicine. +They affected how I think about research +Question: How did the speculum affect how I think about disease or being +healthy? +Answer: Sanitary medical instruments became more important. Women's +health was considered more serious?? Specialized instruments were +normalized?? +\fi + +{\itshape The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks} investigates the medical +and personal timelines of Henrietta Lacks's immortal HeLa cells. +Their discovery essentially created the field of in-vitro (in a +laboratory environment) research and therapy. +New vaccines, cell-culture techniques, and the technology to grow stem +cells in a petri dish were all invented because of HeLa. +But HeLa also helped construct a more ethical research paradigm, under +the doctrine of informed consent. +Generally, new avenues for research require new limits to be put on +them, and HeLa and the technologies it's helped produce have been no +different. +Gene sequencing, for example, has emerged as a great new frontier, but +brings with it the baggage of genetic privacy, as was discovered by the +Lacks family in 2013. +The widened options new research technologies bring reveal ethical +blindspots or create new ones, and the subsequent backlashes build new +norms protecting the health of participants, like informed consent. + +``Illegal, Immoral, and Deplorable'' describes one such backlash. +The respected physician Chester Southam feared ``Henrietta's cancer +cells could infect the scientists working on them,'' +\autocite[127]{Lacks} so he tested his theory on subjects he lied to, +injecting them with Henrietta's cells to see if the subjects got cancer. +In at least one subject, ``Henrietta's cancer cells metastasized.'' +\autocite[128]{Lacks} +Southam rationalized his violation of subjects' bodily autonomy by +claiming his trials weren't meaningfully injurious, but three doctors +saw a striking similarity to Nazi medical experiments prosecuted during +the Nuremberg trials. +The Board of Regents ``found Southam and Mandel guilty of ``fraud or +deceit and unprofessional conduct in the practice of +medicine,''\thinspace'' \autocite[134]{Lacks} causing the National +Institute of Health to establish that ``all proposals for research on +human subjects had to be approved by review boards'' +\autocite[135]{Lacks}. +This sort of experiment was neither viable nor ``necessary'' before +HeLa, meaning HeLa was crucial in bringing attention to this ethical +crisis. +The novel technology of HeLa led to an abusive experiment being revealed +to the public, and the NIH and others stepped in to protect patients +from being unknowingly included in studies like this. + +The backlashes against new technology aren't always entirely rational or +altruistic, however. +Generally, backlashes aim to protect the public from a perceived harm, +real or not. +``SCIENTISTS CREATE MONSTERS'' \autocite[142]{Lacks} headlined in the +early 60s, attacking somatic cell fusion, another technology made +possible by HeLa. +``Cell sex'' let researchers ``begin mapping human genes to specific +chromosomes,'' \autocite[142]{Lacks} develop ``cancer therapies like +Herceptin,'' \autocite[142]{Lacks} and ``identify the blood groups that +increased the safety of transfusions.'' \autocite[142]{Lacks} +But the fact that this technology fused different species was alarming. +The prohibition wasn't institutionalized like informed consent, but +mouse-human hyrbids still held stigma. +Many new technologies garner similar responses, but the backlash +rarely sticks if the criticism is invalid. +% improve + +The book centrally contends with another rights issue---what control the +Lacks (and medical patients, in general) deserve over their cells. +The historical conflict can't be resolved because her cells can't be +taken differently: ```They were taken in a bad way but they are doing +good for the world,' [Alfred Lacks Carter] says.'\thinspace'' +But many of the injustices that occurred after her death can: ``doctors +and scientists repeatedly failed to ask her family for consent as they +revealed Lacks’s name publicly, gave her medical records to the media, +and even published her cells' genome online.'' \autocite{Nature} +Because full genome sequencing has been made so cheaply available, a +researcher, without asking the Lacks, published HeLa's genome in 2013. +``The work would become a bioethical lightning rod'' +\autocite{Callaway}. +The incident raised questions about genetic privacy and scientists' +awareness that cell lines might even be deanonymized in the future. +The development of genome sequencing raised new questions intrinsic to +the technology like ``can a genome be deanonymized?'' and ``should the +genomic data be protected?'' but it also dredges up the same old +concern: what rights the Lacks have over Henrietta's cells. +The author chose to unpublish it and, with the Lacks's approval, +republished it with restrictions. +This microcosmic justice shows that new techniques and technologies +amplify existing problems and create entirely new ones, but the +public criticism received solves or mitigates those same problems. + +\printbibliography +\end{document} -- cgit