Note: This article ties in to many of the class discussions we had about The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and continues the medical ethics considerations we made as a result of those discussions. The numbered section of this article is disturbing and may be skipped without a loss of understanding of the article's main point and without impairing your ability to answer the questions related to the article. Because of the length of the assignment, this article will be worth fifty points instead of the normal twenty.
Read the following article:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/johns-hopkins-lawsuit-deliberate-std-infections-guatemala
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. Name the two parties involved in this lawsuit.
2. How does this complaint against Johns Hopkins relate to the material we read about the hospital in Henrietta Lacks?
3. What two other organizations, besides Johns Hopkins, are named in the case?
4. What three types of Guatemalans does the article specifically address as being targeted for the study?
5. How many people are still alive who directly survived the program?
6. Why was the US government exonerated in the 2012 case that involved this program?
7. Why do you believe that the author of the article included "May God forgive them" as a part of Marta Orellana's quote about the program?
8. From what we read in Henrietta Lacks, how did medical researchers in the 1940s and 1950s often treat the subjects of their studies?
9. In the novel series Harry Potter, a major adage of the pure-blooded philosophy is that atrocities against muggles may be committed, "For the greater good." In situations such as Henrietta Lacks', the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and this one, does this adage apply? In other words, if medical advances for society can be made because of the sacrifices of a few people, should those people's welfare be willingly and legally sacrificed?
10. If Johns Hopkins if found guilty of coordinating and supporting this study, what would a suitable punishment be for them?
Jon Owens
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involves are the John Hopkins University and the Rockefeller Foundation.
2. It is similar because gonorrhea and syphilis are some of the diseases that infected some of the patients when we read Henrietta Lacks.
3. John Hopkins School of Medicine and Bristol-Myers Squibb are also named in the case.
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients were targeted for the study.
5. 60 out of the 774 claimants were actual survivors.
6. A judge determined the US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US. Bekman.
7. The author included that statement to draw guilt out of the people responsible and to draw sympathy from the audience. The author is clearly against John Hopkins.
8. They treated the test subjects horrible. They didn't tell them anything. No form of consent. No information about what they were doing. No anything.
9. I believe they should make those sacrifices in a legal and willing fashion. Like organ donors, they should let people volunteer to give their cells and organs for science when ever they want and long as they sign a form of consent and are willing to do it.
10. I believe they should have life in prison. They've affected the lives of many people, so let their cell mates affect and infect them for the rest of theirs.
Carrie-Grace Gardino
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involved are Johns Hopkins University and he Guatemalans.
2. The complaint talked about in this article does relate to the material in Henrietta Lacks with the Syphilis Study that happened at Tuskegee. Also relates to when one of the doctors from Johns Hopkins wanted to inject cancer into the prisoners without their consent.
3. The two other organizations mentioned in the article are Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. The three types of Guatemalans targeted are orphans, prisoners, and mental health patents.
5. There were about 60 direct survivors left from the program.
6. The US was exonerated because the judge said that the U.S. can't be held responsible for things that happen outside the country.
7. I think the author included that to show that although she is upset and doesn't feel like they did what is right to her, she still forgives them. It shows her compassion and forgiveness in the terrible situation.
8. From past reading in Henrietta Lacks the medical researchers often times did not treat their subjects with respect. Most of the time the subjects were treated as if they were part of an experiment, which they were. The subjects were there to be the "practice dummy."
9. I do think some peoples welfare can be sacrificed if it is to help the greater good. For example, prisoners who have committed a crime in which they will serve life or be sentenced to death in prison should be used for medical advances if needed. I don't think there is anything wrong with this because they are already going to die in prison anyway or be sentenced to death, so they might as well be used for medical advancement. In relation to medical advancement, if it can help multiple people with only allowing a couple to die/be harmed then I think that it is worth it.
10. I'm not exactly sure what the appropriate punishment would be for Johns Hopkins if they were to be found guilty but I do think that Johns Hopkins should be willing to pay for the medical care and advancement the Guatemalans would need to fix what they did. I also think they should be able to take full and complete responsibility to fix anything else that was caused by their study.
Jagory White
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins University and Guatemalans
2. In Hen, Lacks, the doctors were also doing non consensual experiments on patients and the ordeal was not later found out about until the Lacks family had a thorough investigation done.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients.
5. Approximately 60 direct survivors.
6. Because of the Federal Tort Claims Act
7. To show how Orellana pities the foreigners and the Guatemalan doctors that performed the experiments on her.
8. They used big words because most of the people that came to them were not educated and didn't know the meaning of half of the medical terms used.
9. If some other country wants to do it, then more power to them, but for the United States, who prides its on the rights given to humans by God and the rights given to us by the Constitution, I think it should stay illegal when it comes to being non consensual. I think the patient should always make the decision on whether or not to do it. If he/she later decides to pull out of the experiments, then restrictions be place on him at all times in case any of the possible diseases he/she has does not spread.
10. I think a suitable punishment would that John Hopkins be shut down as an experimentation facility and they should have to pay all the money demanded by the Plaintiffs.
Katie Little, 1st.
ReplyDelete1. The nearly 800 Guatemalans that were deliberately infected with STD's and John Hopkins University.
2. In both cases, the parties involved were not being told what was happening nor were they given a chance to say no to the experiments being done to them.
3. The Rockefeller Foundation and predecessor companies of the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients.
5. Around 60.
6. A judge determined in the 2012 case that the US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US.
7. I believe it was put in their to give the article the emotional appeal that it was missing. Readers aren't going to connect with an article that is nothing but fact and statistic.
8. Medical researchers treated their subjects as just that, subjects. They never took into account that they were dealing with real people who had families and that their patients could be affected by their experiments. These "subjects" have the right to say no to the experiment, and researchers failed to realize that.
9. No, it shouldnt. Henrietta seemed like the type that would give up her cells for a greater good, but she still has the right to say no. Her body, her decision. Same applies to anyone else in that situation.
10. With the time frame that the experiments were being done in, I dont think they will be found guilty. I know, almost 800 killed, and no consequences to those who helped with the killing, its tragic, but Hopkins wasn't guilty when the Lacks Family tried to sue, so the chances of being found guilty are slim. But if they were found guilty, I'd like to see the company pay the amount that they're being sued for.
Kalee Jones
ReplyDelete1.Guatemalans and John Hopkins University
2. They did these experiments without permission much like they did an experiments on Henrietta Lacks' cells without her permission.
3.Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients
5. 60/774
6. Federal Tort Claims Act failed
7. She wants you to realize how awful this situation really was.
8. They treated them like test rats and acted as if they really didn't matter.
9. Yes and No. If you have their permission, then yes you should be able to for the greater good f future patients but you should never be able to just take someones information without their knowledge.
10. To fire who ever ran the program and hire a new one, and create a law stating that this should be illegal. They should also shut down the school's program and move it to another school.
Will Larsen
ReplyDelete1. Johns Hopkins University and vulnerable Guatemalans
2. They tested people without their knowledge. And infected them with diseases to test.
3. Rockefeller FOundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients
5. 60 of 774
6. the US Government cannot be held responsible
7. To show how evil the crime they committed was
8. They often treated them as less than human and as if they are dumb
9. Only if the people are willing to do this. If they are not aware of this then it should not be.
10. A public reprimand. And these institutions should cease to exist.
Emylee
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans and John Hopkins University
2. Neither Henrietta or the Guatemalans knew about the studies on their bodies.
3.Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60
6. So that it would not reflect poorly on the United States government and so citizens wouldn't think they were in support of John Hopkins University
7.To show that an actual subject had no idea what happened to her own body. They took advantage of her and her right to know what they were doing to her.
8. very bad, they didn't tell the subjects anything
9.In this circumstance, I don't think the greater good applies, because they didn't know what was happening and they were being taken advantage of. However, if there were volunteers who knew what would happen in this study, then it would be for the greater good.
10. A suitable punishment would be to shut down the entire program and John Hopkins
Tempie Ennis
ReplyDelete1. Guatemala's and John Hopkins University
2. They were not told about the studies.
3. Rockefeller foundation and Bristot Myers Squibb.
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients.
5.60 of 774
6. US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US.
7. To show that the actual subject had no idea what happened. They took advantage of her and her rights.
8. Very poorly, didn't tell them anything.
9.If you are actually going to get something out of someone, it should be something you know will benefit a lot of people.
10. To quit the study and start being monitored on the studies they want to do.
Maya Turner
ReplyDelete1. Johns Hopkins University and Guatemalans.
2. They were unknowingly taking cells from Henrietta just like they are unknowingly injecting these people with diseases and they can't do anything about it.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squabb.
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients were deliberately affected.
5. About 60 survived.
6. They could not be held responsible for things that happen outside of the US.
7. To give an emotional appeal and to show that they are real people and they have the ability to forgive someone for something so bad.
8. They were not treated with respect or as people. Just as a test subject with no feelings.
9. No, because if you or one of you're other family member's were one of those few people then you would not care, you would just want to be safe. I could see how this may benefit most people but unless you're being directly affected, then of course it would be.
10. I think they should be fined and ordered to donate and do service in Guatemala to help the communities there.
Nicholas Ratliff
ReplyDelete1) the two parties involved in the lawsuit are John Hopkins hospital and 800 Guatemalans
2) in Henrietta Lacks the family and many people thought John Hopkins did horrible experiments on people and this article proves they did.
3) the Rockefellers and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4) the three types of people targeted were orphans, the mentally ill, and prisoners.
5) 60 of the plaintiffs were survivors of the experiments.
6) the government was exonerated because they could not be held responsible outside of the U.S.
7) she left it in the quote because it shows how the woman believes that what the doctors did was so bad they need divine forgiveness.
8) people in the studies were not told the full extent of the test or not told at all and were not given any medical care.
9) people know what they are getting into and get any medical help they need and they are completely aware of what is happening.
10)they would have to pay reparations to the people and family's of the victims.
1. The two parties involved in this lawsuit are Johns Hopkins University and hundreds of Guatemalans deliberately infected with sexually transmitted diseases.
ReplyDelete2. The complaint against Johns Hopkins is related to the material we read about the hospital in Henrietta Lacks because the complaint involves non-consensual and misinformed experiments on patients.
3. The two other organizations named in the case are the Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. The three types of Guatemalans specifically addressed as being targeted for the study were orphans, prisoners and mental health patients
5. About 60 are still alive who directly survived the program.
6. The US government was exonerated in the 2012 case that involved this program because the US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US.
7. The author probably included Marta Orellana's quote about the program to show that what the doctors' did was ethically wrong and that because of that they will face a lot of consequences, but maybe they will be forgiven by a higher power.
8. Medical researchers in the 1940s-50s often treated the subjects of their studies extremely unfairly by misinforming their patients, being non-consensual, or ultimately treating patients like experiments not human beings.
9. No, this adage does not apply because this is not a fictional world. These people were/are REAL people that were subjected to misinformed and non-consensual experiments. Peoples' welfare should not be sacrificed for medical advancements unless if those people are willingly and legally offering themselves to be exposed to harsh conditions that may or may not put them in harmful/fatal positions. Even then it is a questionable ideal considering the cost of life is put at stake.
10. A suitable punishment for them would be reimbursing all living patients and late patients' families, be that with money, medical care, or even a memorial.
Cameron Stone
ReplyDeleteThe Guatemalan plaintiffs and Johns Hopkins.
It's has to do with medical ethics and non consensual experimentation.
The U.S. government and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Orphans, prisoners, and mentally-ill people.
60
A judge ruled the government cannot be liable for something done out of the country.
To show she did not agree with the people doing the "study" and she agrees that maybe somehow they can be forgiven.
They treated them poorly. Much like animals.
Nobodies rights can be taken away unwillingly like Thai for the greater good of others. If it is really a worthwhile cause there will be volunteers to do help.
There is no suitable punishment for an organization found guilty of this kind of crime against humanity.
Amber C. Price
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involved in this lawsuit are John Hopkins University and the Philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation against 800 people who were experimented on.
2.It relates to it by they did not tell the people what they were doing or that they were using them as test subjects and did it against their will and kept it a secret of what they had done.
3.The Rockefeller Foundation and the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb were also named in this case.
4. Orphans, Prisoners, and Mental health patients were targeted to do experiments on.
5. About 60 are still alive and directly survived the program.
6. The US government was exonerated from the case in 2012 because the judge said the US government can be held liable on what is done outside the US.
7.To let the audience know that it was wrong of them to do that to those people and hope that god will see past there evil and wrong doings from forcing experiments on people that did not know what was going on and it killed any of the victims and also add a sort of emotion but truthful feel to the article.
8.They treated them wrong by forcing experiments on them without their approval and did not let them know what was going on and treated them only like test subjects with no respect and did not care about the people but finding out what would happen with the experiments like the experiments were more important than the people they were doing experiments on.
9. I think the adage could be applied if the people volunteered and knew what was going on and not forced and knew nothing because then it would cause a big problem like it already has .It is better to save more people than just a few and so some people will have to be sacrifice but not without the persons approval and understanding of what they are getting into even though there are sometimes where it is too critical to take a long time to get approval from volunteers when a lot of people are at stake but i still think they should get the people's approval no matter what.
10. I think definitely they should pay for what they done to those people and especially have a long time in jail with no visitation from anyone for a while but most people will say death penalty but people have to remember they were trying to help save the society even though it is wrong for them to do it without the people's approval and treat them wrongly.
1. John Hopkins school of medicine and Guatemalans who were allegedly infected with STDs.
ReplyDelete2. Because just like in the book, theses Guatemalans were never told of the condition they were to be put in and used for the health benefits of society rather than their's, and unknowingly.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4.Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients.
5. 60.
6. The judge said the United States government can not be held liable for actions outside of the US.
7. to exemplify the severity of the situation and how it is an unforgivable act.
8. They treated them harshly and without giving them the proper knowledge they deserved.
9. No. Not at all. Every person is deserving a life without the fear of their body being abused for the benefit of others. Even if they can save the world, if they do not want to sacrifice or hurt themselves to help the world, then nobody has the right to take that from them. However, if they are wiling to sacrifice in order for the world to be a safer place, then they have every right to that as well, and should be rewarded for doing so.
10. A fine and repurcussions to their university. Possibly a probation of some sort.
Jaida Minor
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins University and 800 plaintiffs supporting the Guatemala people
2. Vulnerable people are being used for scientific study without permission
3. The Rockerfeller Foundation and the Bristol- Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60 people
6. The U.S. couldn't be held liable for actions outside the U.S.
7. To draw emotion to readers and bring in symphony on these people.
8. They both are being drawn with illness and are
9. Yes because no because these are innocent people who haven't done anything that are being harmed
10. The shutdown of scientific study do awhile and the people effected should receive money
Addie Melchior
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans who were unknowingly injected with STD's and Johns Hopkins.
2. The two situations relate because, in Henrietta's situation neither her nor her family were told about the research being done on her cells and in this situation the Guatemalans were not told what they were being studied/tested for and had no clue what the researchers were doing to them.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristoll-Myers Squibb.
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients.
5. About 60 directly survived the program.
6. A judge decided that the US government could not be held responsible for something that took place outside of the US.
7. It created an emotional appeal which helped establish that what the researchers did was not only seen as unethical to our society but also in God's eyes.
8. They did not show much real interest in their subjects. They usually did not know their real names and made no personal attachment to the individual.
9. I do not think so. The only way I think that that would work would be if each individual agreed to the study and had a complete understanding of what was being done to them and what might happen. Otherwise, it is unethical.
10. They should have to pay all of the people who suffered from their research for what they have lost. They should also lose their ranking as one of the top hospitals in our nation, which may happen on its own because if found guilty the hospital will lose most of its credibility.
Lizzie Walker
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans and Johns Hopkins
2. It relates because the Guatemalans were unknowingly injected with an STD like the African Americans in HeLa were inknowingly injected with an STD.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60
6. It happened outside the U.S.
7. It shows that some people of Guatemala are not holding grudges.
8. They often hid things from them and, did not give them the rights they deserved. They treated them poorly generally.
9. I think the people who are being sacrificed for medical advances should have the oppurtunity to agree or disagree to take part in the study because of you look hard enough, there will always be someone who will agree to take part in it.
10. I think a a punishment would be that they be fined and the money be given to those families who were affected.
1. Name the two parties involved in this lawsuit.
ReplyDelete800 Guatemalan plaintiffs and John Hopkins Uinversity.
2. How does this complaint against Johns Hopkins relate to the material we read about the hospital in Henrietta Lacks? Both of the people involved in these experiments were not informed and they were not asked for consent.
3. What two other organizations, besides Johns Hopkins, are named in the case? Bristol-Myers-Squibb and the Rockefeller Foundation.
4. What three types of Guatemalans does the article specifically address as being targeted for the study? Orphans, mental health patients, and prisoners.
5. How many people are still alive who directly survived the program? Around sixty.
6. Why was the US government exonerated in the 2012 case that involved this program? Because the government was not held responsible for actions outside of the US.
7. Why do you believe that the author of the article included "May God forgive them" as a part of Marta Orellana's quote about the program? Because she wanted her audience to pity the woman and that's easier if she seems like a forgiving person.
8. From what we read in Henrietta Lacks, how did medical researchers in the 1940s and 1950s often treat the subjects of their studies? Like guinea pigs.
9. In the novel series Harry Potter, a major adage of the pure-blooded philosophy is that atrocities against muggles may be committed, "For the greater good." In situations such as Henrietta Lacks', the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and this one, does this adage apply? In other words, if medical advances for society can be made because of the sacrifices of a few people, should those people's welfare be willingly and legally sacrificed? No, they should be informed and they should provide consent. Besides, all pure-bloods are either liars or semi-incestuous, so they're not really superior to anyone. That should be applied here.
10. If Johns Hopkins if found guilty of coordinating and supporting this study, what would a suitable punishment be for them? Providing for the healthcare of the people involved in the program and anyone they might have infected, including their children and their children's children and so on.
Lizzy Liston
Drew Forrester
ReplyDelete1st period
1.) The two sides in this lawsuit are Guatemalan plaintiffs and Johns Hopkins.
2.) The complaint in this article is related to the occurrences in Henrietta Lacks in that the patients were injected with some type of STD just like the syphilis cases.
3.) The other two organizations in this case are the Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4.) This article states that orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients were targeted by the study.
5.) 60 or so people that survived the program are still alive.
6.) The U.S. government was exonerated because we could not be held responsible for a study held outside of U.S. soil.
7.) The author includes this statement because it shows that the patient believes that the only one who can judge the experimenters justly is God himself.
8.) Medical researchers of the 40s and 50s treated their patients like lab rats.
9.) Honestly, if the researchers were to get FULL informed consent from possible test subjects (telling them everything involved in the experiment and the hopeful outcome) and can get it documented, I think that it would be okay to go a step further in experimenting. However, without consent, under no circumstances should the experiment be done.
10.) A suitable punishment for Johns Hopkins under this case may be to put them under a probation-like situation. The federal government could send someone to monitor Johns Hopkins's every move for a time period.
Riley Holmes
ReplyDelete1) its between Guatemalans and John Hopkins
2) The people were treated unfairly and its like what Henrietta and her family feared
3) The Rockefeller foundation and Bristol-Myers squibb
4) Orphans, Prisoners, and mental health patients were targeted.
5) 60 survivors.
6) They couldn't be liable for it being held out of the states.
7) To create and ethical appeal.
8) They treated them as inferiors and did what they wanted to them.
9) They shouldn't be sacrificed without being able to say no this is wrong and I don't want it being done to me.
10) To pay the families they directly affected.
London Williamson
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans and John Hopkins
2. The Guatemalans wasn't told about the studies just like Henrietta Lacks wasn't told about them taking her cells.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60 of 774
6. A judge said that the U.S. government cannot be held accountable for things that happen outside of the U.S.
7. To show that she was taken advantage of and that she did not know what was going on but that she had a right to know.
8. They treated them badly and without respect because they would withhold information from them.
9. No. People should not be taken advantage of just because people want to make medical advances. If they want to help with experiments for those purposes then there is not anything wrong with it but if they don't know about it then I believe it is wrong.
10. I believe that a suitable punishment would be that they have to pay the families of the people who they performed experiments on, everyone involved should loose their medical license.
Cassie House
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involved was Hopkins University and Baltimore-based attorney for the plaintiffs Paul Bekman.
2. This relates because vulnerable people were taking advantage of and not informed about what was going on, just like Henrietta wasn't informed that her cells were being taken from her.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients were specifically being targeted.
5. About 60.
6. Because they couldn't be held liable for things that happened out of the U.S.
7. To make the readers feel bad for her because she is saying may God forgive them even though the treated her very wrongly.
8. They treated the subjects of their studies as if they were inhuman, like animals.
9. If that person gives permission for their body to be used as a study then there shouldn't be anything wrong with it, but if no permission is given then that is very wrong.
10. A suitable punishment would be them donating money to the survivors of the research and their research facility be closed down since they can't use it in a correct way.
Abigail Long
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins and Rockefeller Foundation
2. minorities were used in experiments without their consent
3. Bristol-Meyer Squibbs Rockefeller Foundation
4. orphans, mental health patients, and prisoners
5. 60
6. because the us government cannot be held responsible for actions done outside the US
7. To show that there is not only just hatred from the victims but that she understood that those were twisted people who did that
8. they were very unethical and mostly kept them in the dark, they treated them more like science experiments instead of humans
9. there should ALWAYS be consent from the people involved, and they should also always know exactly what they are doing exactly and what they are getting themselves into. Then, and only then, is that logic acceptable and ethical.
10. Compensate the families or if they are still alive, the victims of the incident, and then fire whomever was all involved in it. then the whole institution should be analyzed to make sure no other occurrences such as this occurred. Since it happened so long ago and most of the people involved have already passed on it is kind of unfair to punish those there now since they didn't have anything to do with it.
Angel Harris
ReplyDelete1. Name the two parties involved in this lawsuit.
The plantiff thats supports Guatemala vs John Hopkins
2. How does this complaint against Johns Hopkins relate to the material we read about the hospital in Henrietta Lacks?
Injected many people with diseases and did the same with Henrietta
3. What two other organizations, besides Johns Hopkins, are named in the case?
Rockefeller foundation and Bristol- Myers Squibb
4. What three types of Guatemalans does the article specifically address as being targeted for the study?
Orphans, mental health patients and prisoners
5. How many people are still alive who directly survived the program?
about 60
6. Why was the US government exonerated in the 2012 case that involved this program?
because they ant not be held liable for actions outside the US
7. Why do you believe that the author of the article included "May God forgive them" as a part of Marta Orellana's quote about the program?
To show her religious views and that maybe deep down she doesn't forgive them for it.
8. From what we read in Henrietta Lacks, how did medical researchers in the 1940s and 1950s often treat the subjects of their studies?
Like they didn't have a life in the future. They had no rights to tell them what they can and cannot do. They were used as subjects to test on.
9. In the novel series Harry Potter, a major adage of the pure-blooded philosophy is that atrocities against muggles may be committed, "For the greater good." In situations such as Henrietta Lacks', the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and this one, does this adage apply? In other words, if medical advances for society can be made because of the sacrifices of a few people, should those people's welfare be willingly and legally sacrificed?
Well, they didn't want that to happen to them anyway because its very illegal. But it can be something that hurts them for the rest of their life.
10. If Johns Hopkins if found guilty of coordinating and supporting this study, what would a suitable punishment be for them?
Most likely jail for life.
Sarah Snyder
ReplyDelete1. The Guatemalans and the John Hopkins University
2. Henrietta Lacks was left unknown about taking her cells, and these people did not know what was being put in them. They both were taken advantage of
3. Rockefeller foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, Prisoners, and mental patients
5. 60 people
6.They cannot be held liable for actions from outside the U.S.
7. It shows how morally wrong this problem really is.
8. They treated subjects almost as if they were not people, like they had no rights what so ever.
9. I think that people should have a say what is being put or taken out of their body. Everyone should have basic human rights.
10. Shut the whole place down, or make sure that they are not allowed to test on people ever again, and/or put them on restrictions.
1. Multiple Guatemalans vs. Johns Hopkins University
ReplyDelete2. In Henrietta Lacks the Tuskegee Syphilis scare was happening and in this instance many Guatemalans were given STD's without their consent.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Meyers Squibb
4. Orphans, Prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60 were direct survivors
6. The action was outside of the United States
7. I believe she added this because they will receive no forgiveness from humans
8. Medical researchers treated their subjects as culturing dishes not as humans
9. I believe strongly that if medical advances can be made by using willing subjects it should be done. The ends justify the means
10. Johns Hopkins should just be fined. Things like this can't be stopped and this was 60 years ago. It's over now and it's history. Nothing is going to change that.
Tyler Poe
ELLA NEUBERT
ReplyDelete1. The Guatemalans who were infected with STDs and John Hopkins Hospital.
2. The hospital in Henrietta lacks also unlawfully and immorally infected people(such as African Americans) with infections(such as Syphillis) for research purposes just as this hospital did.
3. The Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60 people
6. because the case claimed that the US government had no doing or over seeing in the researching from John Hopkins.
7. To show how even people that are harmed by cruelty do not always think of cruelty in return.
8. They treated them as if they were test subjects and were unknowledgable.
9. No, because these are not rare creatures and are not meant for us to experiment on but are humans just as we are and should be treated so. The people should not have to willingly or legally sacrifice themselves but there should be a way where people can volunteer.
10. There is no suitable punishment at this point in time because it was so long ago and all the doctors and researchers and now dead. A;though, money could be given to the ones affected but it would not do any good. Money would only do good in the sense that it went to their future medical expenses.
Melody Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins University and the 800 Guatemalans
2. They both involved injecting someone (blacks or Guatemalans) with a sexually transmitted disease. (In Henrietta Lacks, it was the Tuskegee Syphilis Study).
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60
6. A judge determined the US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US
7. To show that they some of these people did feel guilty and to show that a some of them had no idea what they were doing
8. They treated them not as people, but as objects. All they were to them were objects to perform experiments on
9. No, because society must realize that we are all humans and we all have rights that should not be taken away. We must find other means of making medical advances
10. I believe it would be hard to find a punishment for them, but a hefty fine to repay some of the families and they should be limited on some of the practices they use
Trent Ray
ReplyDelete1. Johns Hopkins University and a group of Guatemalans.
2. It relates to the book because in this case, people were used for medical research without their consent just like Henrietta.
3. Bristol-Meyers Squibb and the Rockefeller Foundation.
4. Orphans, prisoners, and people with mental issues.
5. About 60.
6. The US was exonerated because the incident did not occur on US soil.
7. I think the author included it because it brought context to the situation. It showed that the Guatemalans are not barbaric morons, but that they are humans just like we are: capable of feelings and of understanding when they have been wronged.
8. They often treated them with detatchment. It is almost like they did not see the patients as humans, but only as medical research opportunities.
9. I do not think so. I think that to be used for medical research, one must volunteer themselves. There are probably people with STDs who would gladly volunteer in support of finding a cure.
10. I think a suitable punishment would be providing monetary damages to the victims and their families and to make a public statement apologizing for what they did and promising not to do anything like it again.
Anna Williams
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involved are John Hopkins and hundreds of Guatemalans.
2. It relates to Henrietta Lacks because they took her cells without her knowing and now they have infected people with diseases without letting them know.
3. The Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol Myers Squibb are also named in the case.
4. The three main types of Guatemalans being targeted are orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients.
5. There are approximately sixty survivors.
6. They were exonerated because the US government cannot be held liable for incidents outside of the states.
7. I believe they included this because they have done such horrible things that it would be hard for anyone to forgive them, even someone such as God.
8. They were cruel to them and treated them like test subjects and not real humans.
9. This should not be considered as such. Everyone has a right to know what someone is doing to their body and without consent they should be punished for what they did to these people.
10. There really is not a punishment that could amount to what they have done. For the ones that injected or told them to inject these people with such disease should be injected in the same way the victims were and they should also have to pay for any future medical bills and reimburse them for the ones they have already had to pay.
Cole Turner 1st
ReplyDelete1.) Nearly 800 Guatemalan plaintiffs against John Hopkins University.
2.) Both hospitals used patients for a study & transmitted a disease to them secretly & without their patient's consent.
3.) The philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation & pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4.) Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients.
5.) There were 60 direct survivors.
6.) Because under the Federal Tort Claims Act the US cannot be held responsible for actions outside of the US.
7.) To throw in the religious presence and give the connotation that metaphorically says "Wow, they did that and it ruined this humans's life, but she is still hoping they are forgiven." It adds another degree of sympathy.
8.) They treated them sub-humanly. As long as their research is getting done, the scientists don't care what happens to their subjects.
9.) No, for the second week in a row, I quote Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small." That human has rights and those cannot be taken away. Disagree? Here's what Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said. He said, mostly, that everyone is born with certain unalienable rights. Including the pursuit of happiness.
10.) A suitable punishment would be nothing less than recompensing the families of those who are now deceased because of John Hopkins "work" an amount of money the family feels is an appropriate amount and a sentence to prison for 10 years to life. Depending on the severity of any individuals involvement.
Adrianna Boyd
ReplyDelete1. Johns Hopkins University and Guatemalans.
2. How it relates to the material that we read about this hospital is that they deliberately infect patients with diseases without them knowing.
3. Rockefeller Foundation & Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. The Guatemalans that were targeted for this study are orphans, prisoners, and mental heath patients.
5. Only 60 are still alive.
6. The US government can't be held liable for actions outside of the US.
7. I believe the author included this to show they should be worried about what God thinks of them & their wrongdoings.
8. Medical researchers did not really care about patients, they just took whatever they wanted from them & injected them with diseases without consent.
9. Yes, in order to learn for it to be for the greater good that it should be willingly and legal consent from the person.
10. I think a suitable punishment would be for them to have their medical practices taken away.
Jessica Lewis
ReplyDelete1. The two parties involved are Johns Hopkins University and nearly 800 plaintiffs.
2. Both lacked consent.
3. The two other organisations named in the lawsuit are philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb,
4. According to the lawsuit three specific types of Guatemalans were infected, Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients.
5. About 60 claimants were direct survivors of the programmer. The article does not mention any other survivors who did not claim.
6. The US government could be not charged due to a ruling of "US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US."
7. The author of the article may have included "May God forgive them" as part of Marta Orellana's quote to help shape the mood of the article to show Marta as being saddened about the event.
8. They were treated rather abusively.
9. People should not be sacrificed without their WILLING participation even if it is for the greater good.
10. A suitable punishment or John Hopkins University would be or them to pay compensation for all negatively affected parties and a fine to compensate the cost's of the investigation against them.
ReplyDeleteMy Luu
1. The two parties involved in this lawsuit are Guatemalans and Johns Hopkins University.
2. The complaint against Johns Hopkins relate to the material we read about the hospital in Henrietta Lacks because there were many people suing Johns Hopkins University for using cells without a consent.
3. The two other organizations, besides Johns Hopkins, are named in the case are Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. The three types of Guatemalans does the article specifically address as being targeted for the study are orphans, mental health patients, and prisoners.
5. 60 people survived
6. The US government exonerated in the 2012 case that involved this program because the action was not taken place in the US.
7. The author of the article included "May God forgive them" as a part of Marta Orellana's quote about the program because now that the secret is revealed about Johns Hopkins University's study, everyone is blaming them. "May God forgive them" is part of the quote because it's like God is watching them from above and he knew what Johns Hopkins University did was wrong but the situation is too late to be fixed. He wants the Guatemalans as well as the audience to not blame Johns Hopkins University.
8. The medical researchers treated their subjects as if they had mutism. During the 1940s-1950s, many patients were not asked whether or not the researchers have their consents on the research. The researchers just do whatever they wanted to achieve their purpose.
9. Sacrificing a few people to advance in medical research is absolutely immoral. I believe that whether or not the people are willing to sacrifice or volunteer, it is not acceptable. That one person might not be important when a research is involved to save hundreds of lives, but that one person might be important to somebody else.
10. If Johns Hopkins is found guilty of coordinating and supporting this study, I don't necessary think that there's a need for punishment. The research patients are mostly dead by this time to there's no reason to punish Johns Hopkins. Suing Johns Hopkins does not bring the dead bodies back to life but only make them feel a little bit better which is not the solution in this case.
Jordan Twilley
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans and Johns Hopkins University are the parties involved.
2. Henrietta was never informed her cells were going to be used for cell culture, therefore her consent was never given. The Guatemalans were also never informed, nor did they consent to being involved in their experiment.
3. The Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb were also involved.
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients were targeted for the study.
5. 60 out of 774 survived.
6. The US government was exonerated because they had a greater chance of winning the case through a state trial.
7. "May God forgive them" helps achieve an emotional/empathetic appeal for the Guatemalans, which is what the author wants. It shows Ornella's mercy through religion for those who negatively effected her.
8. Medical Researchers in the 40s and 50s never informed their subjects of what they were researching or how they wanted to include them in their research/experiment. They treated minorities more terribly. They were self-righteous in the sense they were only wanting to gain successful data for their own, personal research. They never thought about how conducting experiments on those who were unaware of the situation would negatively effect their "subjects."
9. Yes and no; if and only if those people are willing to be sacrificed for medical research/advancement, then yes, it is for the greater good. however, if they are not willing to be sacrificed or unaware of the research (i.e. Henrietta Lacks and the Guatemalans), then it is not for the greater good because the research was retrieved through morally and ethically wrong routes. It is good for medical advancement and others who benefit from it, but it negatively effects those who correlate with all subjects.
10. All of the doctors who infected the Guatemalans should lose their licenses and not be able to start a practice elsewhere from Johns Hopkins. They should also be imprisoned because their actions are the equivalent of someone who has HIV/AIDS, STDs, STIs, etc. having sex with someone who is not infected and not informing them
Brittany Davidson 4/10/15 4th period
ReplyDelete1) The two that were involved were John Hopkins University and Guatemalans.
2)They were doing medical experiments in the 1940s and 1950s by infecting Guatemalans with sexually transmitted diseases.
3) Rockefeller Foundations and Bristol Myers Squibb
4) They were experimenting on orphans, prisoners, and health patients.
5) There was 60 survivors.
6) That the U.S. cannot be liable for the actions that happen outside the U.S.
7) Even though the program did ruthless actions upon other people; Maria forgives them and is thankful to be alive.
8) They never asked questions and did the experiment without their consent.
9) It should be up the person whether or not they want to use their body for an experiment that could be deadly.
10) They should pay for the Guatemalans medical care that are still being infected today; it said that people were passing it on to family members. and some of those people could still be living today.
Micaela Tierce
ReplyDelete1.) The lawsuit is between Guatemalan patients and John Hopkins Hospital.
2.) It shows another case against John Hopkins for abusing patients that are in the minority without giving consent or informing them about what was going on.
3.) The other two organizations are Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol Meyer Squibb.
4.) The three types include orphans, mental health patients, and prisoners.
5.) 60 people
6.) It did not take place in the U.S.
7.) It create a pathos appeal because it reveals the victims as people which makes what they did appear even worse. It also shows that the people tested were not horrible people so John Hopkins has no excuse for what they did.
8.) They dehumanized them and did not hold them to the same quality health care that is excepted.
9.) I do not think so, by harming others to help other people it creates a case of situational irony. If the person willingly consents to using their body for the greater good I think that is a very noble thing, but without consent it is despicable and inhumane.
10.) John Hopkins should have to pay everyone affected by the studies a large sum of money to cover medical expenses and living. If the doctors who conducted the experiments are still alive they should be jailed. John Hopkins should also have to publicly announce their fault and be responsible for the consequences.
Jaylin Jones
ReplyDelete1) Guatemalans and John Hopkins
2) John Hopkins used Henrietta's cells without telling Henrietta or her family knowing exactly what their plans for her cells were. The victims of this recent discovery were not told what exactly they were getting into.
3) Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squidd
4) Orphans, Prisoners, and Mental Health Patients
5) 60
6) The U.S. government cannot be held liable for something outside the U.S.
7) To emphasize the kindness and innocence of Marta Orellana
8) Like the patients were not patients if they were dead. If a person came in and a researcher found their case interesting, then they belonged to science.
9) I believe the person must be willing to give there life. If they are made to, then they are stripped from their freedom. That would be like if the war draft was put in place again. Because someone else tells you to, you have to risk you life? That's not right.
10) Take away their ability to travel in search of possible research. There is not much possible for them to take because they are one of the best institutes we have.
1. The parties involved in the lawsuit are Johns Hopkins University and the Guatemalans they infected.
ReplyDelete2. This lawsuit relates to the material in Henrietta Lacks because Johns Hopkins was known to do experiments on blacks that came to them for health care.
3. the Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb
4. orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60
6. because a judge ruled that the United States government can't be held liable for things that occurred outside the United States
7. I think it was included to show that the woman had moved on and forgiven those involved for herself.
8. They treated them very inhumanely, usually not even bothering to learn their names.
9. Absolutely not. The only way I think this would be acceptable is if the few to be sacrificed are aware of absolutely everything that will be happening to him and give completely unwavering consent.
10. I think paying the reparations and issuing a public apology would be a suitable punishment. Nothing can bring back the lives that were taken, but acknowledging what was done and giving what's being asked of them would give the appropriate closure to the situation.
Ken Garayanala
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins University and the Rockefeller Foundation.
2. It relates to how scientists have taken advantage of people's lives because of their social status.
3. Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Rockefeller Foundation.
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients.
5. Approximately 60 are still alive.
6. Because the U.S. could not be held responsible for anything that happened outside of the country.
7. To show an opinion from one who survived the program.
8. They treated the subjects as if they were just a small part of an experiment instead of actual human beings.
9. No, people should not be taken advantage of because of their conditions.
10. An end to their organization would be a "suitable punishment."
Morgan Fomera
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins and Rockefeller foundation
2. Scientist have been taking advantage of the people that can't refuse the medical help and when they infect them they offer no other support financial or medical. In this case they did not even tell the patience they were infected.
3. Rockefeller and Bristol-Meyers Squibb
4. Prisoners, mental health patience and orphans
5. About 60
6. It was not in the United states.
7. To show that she is a good person and has forgiven them putting the scientist that dud this to her in shame because she is a good person.
8. They treated them as lab rats that were not worthy of knowing the truth or receiving good medical care.
9. No! If scientist actually cared about human lives they would find another way because every life is precious and everyone matters.
10. Public humiliation to what he has done, ensuring every family affected is comfortably taken care of, an apology and an end to his organization, ending all research.
Mi'Asia Barclay
ReplyDelete1. Guatemalans and Johns Hopkins University are the parties involved.
2. Henrietta was never informed her cells were going to be used for cell culture, therefore her consent was never given. The Guatemalans were also never informed, nor did they consent to being involved in their experiment.
3. The Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb were also involved
4. Orphans, prisoners, and mental health patients
5. 60
6. A judge determined the US government cannot be held liable for actions outside the US
7. To show that they some of these people did feel guilty and to show that a some of them had no idea what they were doing
8. Medical researchers in the 1940s-50s often treated the subjects of their studies extremely unfairly by misinforming their patients, being non-consensual, or ultimately treating patients like experiments not human beings.
9. No, this adage does not apply because this is not a fictional world. These people were/are REAL people that were subjected to misinformed and non-consensual experiments. Peoples' welfare should not be sacrificed for medical advancements unless if those people are willingly and legally offering themselves to be exposed to harsh conditions that may or may not put them in harmful/fatal positions.
10. John Hopkins should be sued and the organization associated with the situation should be fired and put in prison.
Spencer Budzius
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins and Guatemalans they used in their research.
2. It is similar to how Henrietta was not informed of what the hospital was doing and how it effected her life.
3. Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Rockefeller foundation.
4. Orphans, Prisoners, and Mental health patients.
5. +- 60 survivors.
6. It was decided that the government cannot be help liable for its actions outside the country.
7. To evoke emotions such as sympathy and guiltiness from the readers to make a stronger point.
8. It was obvious that the level of respect for the patients as very low, almost non-existent. They were not informed on what was going on and were often lost due to the experiment.
9. I believe there should always be a choose. Whether its a similar situation as to an organ donor, or otherwise resolvable institutions such as, serious crime convicts and/or people awaiting the death penalty.
10. I don't believe there is any such punishment to right this wrong. Possibly a large monetary payment to the families, but I do not think that in any way the John Hopkins center should be effected as now they do provide a lot of help to many people.
Harrison Armour
ReplyDelete1. John Hopkins and the Guatemalans.
2. John Hopkins was accused of similar acts using blacks around the same time.
3. Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
4. Orphans, prisoners and mental health patients.
5. 60 approximately.
6. Because it took place outside the U.S. borders.
7. To show that what they did needs forgiveness from a higher power.
8. With very little rights to what is taking from or done to their bodies. Treated less than human.
9. I believe that if people want to be a part of an experiment "for the greater good," then they should be allowed to do so, as long as they are willing. No one should be forced into making their body a test subject if they don't want to.
10. A fine and more taxes.