Langelotti 1

Difference Among the 4 Different Sources

The immoral life of Henrietta’s Dance Bullet list of time An obsession with
Henrietta Lacks line Culture

-Book -Article -list of bullets -Facts from Dr.

Geys point of view
-Story, had her -Story -Facts about
point of view Henrietta’s cells -Non-fiction
-3rd person
-Non-fiction -3rd person -Article
-Biased about
-3rd and 1st person Henrietta -formal -3rd person
point of view -Non-Fictional -Non-fiction -formal
-Based off -About Henrietta’s -List of bullet points -Facts about
Henrietta’s life and life Henrietta’s cells
how her cells -Focused on a
affected science -informal timeline of her life
and her cells use
-mentioned authors
point of view
-Informal

Position Statement
People should have the
right to control what’s
done with their tissues
once tissues are
removed from their
bodies.
Giving patients property
rights of their tissues
might hinder research
because fewer people
would allow the use of
their tissue, restricting
access to the necessary
raw materials.
Tissues taken from a
patient and sold for profit
should profit the
individual or the
individual’s family from
whom the tissue was
taken.
Allowing patients to profit
from their tissues would
hinder scientific progress
because patients would
hold out for excessive
profits.
People can sell their
sperm, their eggs, and
their blood. There is no
reason they should not
be able to sell their
tissues and organs.
Position Statements
Support for Position
The tissues are part of your
body and you should be
able to choose what
happens to them. You can’t
just take a part of
someone’s body and not let
them know where their
tissues are going.
Giving patients property
rights will make the tissue
harder to get which could
delay biological/medical
advances
The tissues originally came
from the patient, so they
could be able to make a
profit off it.
It would make the donated
tissues more expensive
It the person’s body and if
they chose to sell their body
parts them they should be
able to.
Langelotti 2
Support Against
Position
If the tissues could
potentially affect the what
the world looks at science
and the person is
persisting to not give
professionals the tissues
that could be an issue.
Also, what would the
person do with a tissue
that’s already removed?
It’s not even part of their
body anymore.
It will not mess up
research because the
tissues will still be used,
just not in the way needed
Giving profit to the patient
will make the price of the
tissues for people who
need it more expensive
and could affect the
mortality of the recipient
depending on their
economic situation
The tissues will still be
there for sale and there
will still be access to
People should not be able
to sell tissues directly, it
should be done through a
hospital or if they die they
can donate.
 Langelotti 3

Conclusion Questions
7. In my opinion, it was unethical because they didn't contact the family even though
she was a blood relative. It was very secretive because they took her cells without
telling her or even giving her credit. Although her cells made a huge difference in
science today, he should’ve gotten legal permission.

8. Today, without HeLa cells, many people would not be living. Her cells made such an
impact and really bring up mortality rates. The main thing that the article mentions is
that the cells are used to treat diseases. One of the ones that stuck with me was
measles. I think if they weren't discovered we would have a lot more sicknesses.

9. I think the family should be compensated because they took her cells without any
permission and made a profit off something that isn’t even theirs. They also should
make a memorial for her at the hospital since she helped change science so much.