The debate as to whether or not informed-consent should remain a law or be defunct really comes down to the pros and cons. If Henrietta Lacks had the option of selecting “No” on the informed-consent form regarding her medical visits, then a biopsy would still have been taken if it was known what would come about them. John’s Hopkins Hospital at the time, was the only hospital that accepted black patients, which did not stop them from unknowingly taking samples from Lacks simply because they could. This gives rise to the debate as to whether or not informed consent should be treated as a priority when it comes to a patient’s own body. It cannot be easily determined whether or not a patient’s consent should take priority over treating and possibly curing some of the worst known diseases.

An argument against informed-consent can be stated as:
1) The biopsy does not harm the patient in any way if performed properly.
2) The samples taken will be directed solely for treating others with the same disease, possibly those in the patient’s family who are at risk of contracting the same condition.
3) If a patient was suffering from cancer, and the only treatment resided in a cancer cell line, then anyone in the situation would undoubtedly reject the idea of informed consent.

Now in favor of the side for informed consent:
1) Invading a patient’s body is against all ethics, especially without any form of disclosure.
2) Patient confidentiality might be breached after studies are carried out.
3) There’s a chance that the sample(s) taken will not yield any positive results.
4) If a breakthrough treatment becomes available, then the donor is entitled to compensation proportional to the success of the treatment itself, of which the patient will not likely have much of a say.

So worst-case scenario for nullifying informed-consent is that the patient is harmed during the biopsy and their samples bring about no positive results, whereas the worst-case scenario of enforcing informed-consent is not having a treatment for some of the worst-known diseases. Are there any more advantages and disadvantages of both sides? Assuming patient confidentiality was maintained and that patients are guaranteed to not undergo any harm during the sample acquisition process, is it still okay to omit informed-consent? After Henrietta Lacks had passed away, doctors and researchers would solicit Lacks’ family for blood samples to compare cell lines and further their research, knowing that they had no knowledge of the samples that were taken initially. Is it still acceptable to disregard informed-consent knowing that the patient’s family might become involved? What if a close family member falling ill with the same condition can only be prevented by eliminating the need of informed-consent?