Henrietta Lacks and Privacy

Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Many ethical concerns arise in the story of Henrietta Lacks. Privacy is perceived as an ethical dilemma in the present times, however, at the time it occurred it might not have been seen as unethical. Skoot (2010) in the book discusses the unintentionally inconsiderate reporters and researchers who were in violation of the family's privacy by printing and distributing all aspects ranging from the medical records of Henrietta to the genetic information of the family. Such divulgence raises unethical concerns contemporarily, as the disclosure of patient information is not allowed.

Common Morality

In accordance to Gert et al. (2000), a moral agent based on common morality can be delineated as an individual who completely comprehends what is demanded, prohibited, permitted, and affected by moral rules and an individual who can reasonably accepted being guided and also judged by such moral rules. As is known, common morality is a public system and it comprises the moral justifications to which every individual conforms commonly. In particular, there are ten various moral rules that are demanded or forbidden of moral agents. These are essentially the basic components of common morality employed through the formulation of norms, which act as guiding principles for all moral agents (Gert et al., 2000). In the case of privacy violation, particularly with regard to the story of Henrietta Lacks, certain moral rules may have been violated. These rules include do not cause pain, do not deprive of freedom, obey the law, and do your duty.

These violations can be analyzed at length. According to Gert (2004), rights similar to the right to privacy elucidate the moral rules. For instance, if an individual looks at another individual, and that person becomes upset by such an action, then the question under consideration is whether the first individual caused discomfiture to the other. It is imperative to note that this consideration is does not encompass causality, rather whether the first individual ought to be deemed as violating any of the moral rules barring the causation of pain to another. Therefore, in the case of privacy violation in the story of Henrietta lacks, the conclusion is that privacy has been violated. This violation of an individual's right to privacy is a violation of an elucidation of the rule that prohibits moral agents from causing pain (Gert, 2004).

Secondly, every individual has rights and freedoms. As ethics dictate, an individual should express their own rights without violating the rights of others. In this case, Henrietta and the family have the right of ensuring that their personal information is not disclosed without their consent as this violates their own privacy. Therefore, such disclosure amounts to the violation of the moral rule prohibiting the deprivation of freedom. In addition, the journalists and reporters are undertaking their duty. One of the moral rules in common morality is to do one's duty. The duty of the reporters is to provide news and information, and disclose and publish such information to the public. However, being adherent to this particular moral rule posits against the other moral rules together with the moral rule of obeying the law. At the time, there was no rule pertaining to the privacy of individuals. However, in the contemporary times, the law obligates that privacy of individuals be respected. In this case, the reporters can be considered to have failed to adhere to the law and have, therefore shown negligence (Gert, 2000).

Deontology (Kant)

Deontology, as an ethical framework, emphasizes on undertaking things that are right in themselves, instead of being deemed right because of their consequences, instituting the moral act, that acknowledges the rights of others, and the duties that such rights inflict on the actor (The Business Scholar, 2014). In accordance of the deontological ethical framework, there is no ethical justification of privacy and confidentiality. In particular, this ethical framework defenses rationalize privacy and confidentiality with regard to respect for persons, which is centered in the vital principle of autonomy. Therefore, from a deontological perspective, privacy and confidentiality are vindicated with respect to the inherent value and self-respect of independent persons, not their contributory values, and the ends they serve. an alternative way of explaining is that, privacy and confidentiality aid in safeguarding the moral agency of patients by permitting them to live their lives according to their wishes. Considering these deontological aspects, privacy is deemed an essential and unalienable right (Bauer, 2009).