It is my personal opinion that when a person consents (signs) to having an operation/ procedure done which results in the removal of an organ/ bodily fluid, the patient waives any rights/ ownership they had over the now extracted substance. This rejected organ/ substance is now an independent body that cannot be claimed by the patient, rather becomes the property of the hospital/ doctor/ or university that may or may not want to further examine it. If any cell line or progress comes from the rejected body, I believe that it would be in good faith to tell the patient of origin that they directly helped advance the world of medicine. However, in no way should they be entitled to compensation. After all, they desired to be rid of the organ, so they forfeit all ownership and rights. This is part of the consent forms that all of us routinely sign in the doctor’s office without actually taking the time to ask for a printed hard copy to read.

In regards to the HeLa cells, I believe that Henrietta Lacks case helped set the current laws for the informed consent and implied consent laws. If she never signed a consent form, under today’s law, she and her family would be entitled to the proceeds made from her cells. However, due to the lack of concrete consent laws and the inequality of people of different races at that time in America history, her cell line was unfairly taken advantage of with no resultant repercussions.

https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/blog/2016/07/6/henrietta-lacks-legacy-of-informed-consent/