I believe that every individual has the right to know what is going to be done to them in any sort of clinical setting. I believe that the passage of knowledge to a patient and their understanding is absolutely critical in order to achieve a state of informed consent. But, I believe that when an individual decides to enroll in a clinical trial or experimental study, they are not allowed to participate without giving consent, so this will ultimately resolve any potential conflicts. In addition, as was mentioned above, in the process of administering treatment in which an organ or tissues is removed, consent is required by the medical/research team before it can be repurposed.

In the case of HeLa cells and Henrietta Lacks, informed consent was not a concept that existed in her time. Her case is part of the reason informed consent has been developed. If we explore the hypothetical in which she selected “no” for research use, I believe it is up to the physician and research team as a whole to convince her to allow for her samples to be used. In the case in which they are unable to get the consent, then there is no choice but to respect her wishes. The argument then comes down to the ethics of justice and the greater good. Does justice for one individual outweigh the need to provide justice for the many. This dives into a much larger discussion on ethics.