“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks- Consent Denied” In the second month of 1951, Henrietta Lacks lay unconscious at the operating table at Johns Hopkins Hospital, her feet in stirrups. The 31 year old black woman had travelled 20 miles to the hospital to get treated, for cervical cancer; Johns Hopkins was the only major hospital that treated black patients. However, as she lay unconscious, two dime sized pieces of tissue from her cervix were taken; without her consent, and without her knowledge. Henrietta Lacks’ tissues should have died, just like all other human tissues, but they did not; they survived and multiplied. They were the first ever immortal human cells. No one informed Henrietta Lacks, and her family learnt of her cells immortality much later. Henrietta Lacks cells revolutionized medicine, but her name was not credited to the cells for nearly twenty years. “HeLa” cells as they were named changed medicine, being used to develop cancer drugs, honing experimental standards and even offering basis for studying cellular processes. Her family not only knew of the cell’s existence, but “. . . the general public knew nothing of HeLa.” (46). So, one central theme glimpsed from The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot is that of informed consent. Henrietta Lacks’ cells not only achieved immortality, but they revolutionized medicine, managing to save countless lives yet consent from Henrietta was denied, and her family too was kept in the dark over the remarkableness of the “HeLa” cells. “But first—though no one had told Henrietta that TeLinde was collecting samples or asked if she wanted to be a donor—Wharton picked up a sharp knife and shaved two dime-sized pieces of tissue from Henrietta’s cervix: one from her tumor and one from the healthy cervical tissue nearby” (28). This is how the amazing journey of the “HeLa” cells started. The owner of the cells, was unconscious at the hospital, and the only consent she had given doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was “. . . to perform any operative procedures and under any anaesthetic either local or general that they may deem necessary in the proper surgical care and treatment of cervical cancer” (27). Even after the surgery no one informed Henrietta or her family that her cells had been harvested, and gone on to become the world’s first immortal human cells. This was not only a breach of trust from patient to doctor, but it also shows the degree of respect that black patients were accorded at the time. A level so low that asking for consent to harvest cells was deemed too menial, and even later on, informing the donor or the family of the success of “HeLa” cells was also deemed unimportant. Skloot’s description of Henrietta as a wife and mother, are that of a woman who loves what she is and does; she has accepted her life. This comes out clearly with the descriptions Henrietta is given by the author “. . . Henrietta spent her time cooking for Day the children and whicheve ...

1. “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks- Consent Denied”
In the second month of 1951, Henrietta Lacks lay unconscious
at the operating table at Johns Hopkins Hospital, her feet in
stirrups. The 31 year old black woman had travelled 20 miles to
the hospital to get treated, for cervical cancer; Johns Hopkins
was the only major hospital that treated black patients.
However, as she lay unconscious, two dime sized pieces of
tissue from her cervix were taken; without her consent, and
without her knowledge. Henrietta Lacks’ tissues should have
died, just like all other human tissues, but they did not; they
survived and multiplied. They were the first ever immortal
human cells. No one informed Henrietta Lacks, and her family
learnt of her cells immortality much later. Henrietta Lacks cells
revolutionized medicine, but her name was not credited to the
cells for nearly twenty years. “HeLa” cells as they were named
changed medicine, being used to develop cancer drugs, honing
experimental standards and even offering basis for studying
cellular processes. Her family not only knew of the cell’s
existence, but “. . . the general public knew nothing of HeLa.”
(46). So, one central theme glimpsed from The Immortal Life of
Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot is that of informed consent.
Henrietta Lacks’ cells not only achieved immortality, but they
revolutionized medicine, managing to save countless lives yet
consent from Henrietta was denied, and her family too was kept
in the dark over the remarkableness of the “HeLa” cells.
“But first—though no one had told Henrietta that TeLinde was
collecting samples or asked if she wanted to be a donor—
Wharton picked up a sharp knife and shaved two dime-sized
pieces of tissue from Henrietta’s cervix: one from her tumor and
one from the healthy cervical tissue nearby” (28). This is how
the amazing journey of the “HeLa” cells started. The owner of
the cells, was unconscious at the hospital, and the only consent
she had given doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was “. . . to

2. perform any operative procedures and under any anaesthetic
either local or general that they may deem necessary in the
proper surgical care and treatment of cervical cancer” (27).
Even after the surgery no one informed Henrietta or her family
that her cells had been harvested, and gone on to become the
world’s first immortal human cells. This was not only a breach
of trust from patient to doctor, but it also shows the degree of
respect that black patients were accorded at the time. A level so
low that asking for consent to harvest cells was deemed too
menial, and even later on, informing the donor or the family of
the success of “HeLa” cells was also deemed unimportant.
Skloot’s description of Henrietta as a wife and mother, are that
of a woman who loves what she is and does; she has accepted
her life. This comes out clearly with the descriptions Henrietta
is given by the author “. . . Henrietta spent her time cooking for
Day the children and whichever cousins happened to be at her
house.” (35). Henrietta “. . . just love peoples. She was a person
that could really make the good things come out of you.” (35).
Skloot also points out that “Henrietta had a way with children—
they were always good and quiet when she was around.” (37).
Therefore, when Henrietta started getting treated for cancer
using Radium, she expected that she would recover, and go back
to her old life. But it would seem that Henrietta was again, not
informed the effects that the treatments would have on her “. . .
Until that moment, Henrietta didn’t know that the treatments
had left her infertile.” (38). Henrietta went to Johns Hopkins
Hospital, because it was where she believed she would get the
best treatment for cancer, she gets the treatment, but she is not
adequately informed on the consequences of her treatment,
which leaves her infertile. This is a clear case of denied
consent, because had Henrietta been informed of the effects of
the radiation treatment, she would have refused the treatment. A
doctor who was working on her case brings this out clearly on
his medical record “. . . Told she could not have any more
children. Says if she had been told so before, she would not
have gone through with treatment” (38). This, denied consent is

3. further amplified by the fact that Telinde wrote a paper on
hysterectomy and argued that “The psychic effect of
hysterectomy, especially on the young, is considerable, and it
should not be done without a thorough understanding on the part
of the patient [who is] entitled to a simple explanation of the
facts [including] loss of the reproductive function. … It is well
to present the facts to such an individual and give her ample
time to digest them . . . “(38). So, indeed something went wrong
on Henrietta’s case, or it was simply denied consent for the
poor black woman from Clover, Virginia.
George Gey is credited for having introduced the first ever
immortal human cells to the world, but he was only able to do
this via Henrietta Lacks’ cervical cells. However, it would seem
that Gey betrayed Henrietta since he refused to acknowledge to
the world the true origin of the cells. Gey had many an
opportunity to set the record straight over the cell’s origins, but
he failed to do so. Appearing on WAAM television, a few weeks
after Henrietta started getting treated for cancer; Gey announces
that it will now be possible to cure cancer via the immortal
cells. At this point in time, Henrietta is still alive; Gey does not
ask Henrietta for permission or consent to make such an
announcement. Skool writes “In Gey’s one appearance on
television, he didn’t mention Henrietta or her cells by name, so
the general public knew nothing of HeLa.” (46). Additionally,
Henrietta’s betrayal goes further when an article in Colliers
magazine errs on facts, and attributes the immortal cells to a
‘Helen L.’ and also states that “. . . Gey had grown Helen L.’s
cells from a sample taken after her death, not before.” (81).
Henrietta’s cells were harvested when she was alive,
unconscious at an operating table at John Hopkins Hospital, and
her real name was Henrietta Lacks. Thus, it is clear, that even
after the pricelessness of Henrietta’s cells were found, credit, is
still denied to her. Henrietta is again denied consent to help the
world as Skool observes “. . . She told him she was glad her
pain would come to some good for someone.” (52).
Informed consent over the donation, use and credit of the

4. “HeLa” cells are denied time and time to Henrietta Lacks.
Skool’s narration shows us how the cells were gotten, and used
to change the face of medicine without informed consent from
either Henrietta or her immediate family. The blatant lying on
the part of George Gey, by asserting the cells were harvested
after death, aggravates this denial. Whether by design, or
accident, Skool shows us how a woman seeking help in a
hospital was denied consent over and over, in the pursuit of
medical advancement. In the long run, the “HeLa” cells changed
the face of medicine, but these advancements were at the cost of
throwing the principle of informed consent out of the window.
Works Cited
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New
York: Crown, 2010. Print.
BUS 210 OL
EXAM 3
Answer all questions.
All questions have equal weight.
Question 1.
Carol hired Ben to represent her in her contract suit against
Abe. Pursuant to Ben's written agreement to provide legal
services to Carol, he was to receive a fixed fee of $5,000 plus
50% of any amount recovered in excess of $100,000. Ben had
performed substantial work on the case, and incurred some $200
worth of photocopying costs, before Carol discharged him

5. without cause. Ben estimates that, based on his hourly rate, he
had done about $12,000 worth of work on the case. Carol paid
him nothing.
Carol replaced Ben with Debra, who billed $1,300 worth of
work on the case and recovered $120,000 in settlement from
Abe. Upon hearing of Debra's success, Ben got so upset that he
missed a day of work--a day when Elmer, an important client,
happened to call with an emergency problem. Because Ben was
not available, Elmer paid a competing law firm $30,000 to
resolve his problem. The result so pleased Elmer that he decided
to transfer all of his legal business from Ben to the competing
firm, a loss that Ben estimates at $580,000.
Ben sues Carol for breach of contract.
Discuss the issues raised, the arguments for both parties and the
applicable law.
State your conclusions and the reasons therefore.
Question 2
Being an expert in contract law, you are helping your professor
write a critical article about the issue of “incapacity” to enter
into a contract. You have been asked to consider expanding the
category of "incapacity" to include poverty and/or lack of
education.
You have been asked to do the following:
Discuss the concept of “incapacity” as it exists in contract law
today.
Discuss the arguments for and against the expansion of the

6. concept of incapacity as suggested above.
State your conclusions regarding expanding the concept of
“incapacity” and the reasons therefore.
.
Question 3
Art and Betty own adjoining farms in County, an area, where all
agriculture requires irrigation. Art bought a well-drilling rig
and drilled a 400-foot well from which he drew drinking water.
Betty needed no additional irrigation water, but in January
2011, she asked Art on what terms he would drill a well near
her house to supply better tasting drinking water than the
County water she has been using for years. Art said that because
he had never before drilled a well for hire, he would charge
Betty only $10 per foot, about $1 more than his expected cost.
Art said that he would drill to a maximum depth of 600 feet,
which is the deepest his rig could reach. Betty said, "OK, if you
guarantee June 1 completion." Art agreed and asked for $3500
in advance, with any additional further payment or refund to be
made on completion. Betty said, " OK," and paid Art $3500.
Art started to drill on May 1. He had reached a depth of 200 feet
on May 10 when his drill struck rock and broke, plugging the
hole. The accident was unavoidable. It had cost Art $12 per foot
to drill the 200 feet. Art said he would not charge Betty for
drilling the useless hole, but he would have to start a new well
close by, and could not promise its completion before July 1.
Betty, annoyed by Art's failure, refused to let Art start another
well and on June 1, she contracted with Carlos to drill a well.
Carlos agreed to drill to a maximum depth of 350 feet for
$4500, which Betty also paid in advance, but Carlos could not
start drilling until October 1. He completed drilling and struck
water at 300 feet on October 30.
In July, Betty sued Art seeking to recover her $3500, plus the
$4500 paid to Carlos.
On August 1, County's dam failed, thus reducing the amount of
water available for irrigation. Betty lost her apple crop worth
$15,000. The loss could have been avoided by pumping from

7. Betty's well if it had been operational by August 1. Betty
amended her complaint to add the $15,000 loss.
In her suit against Art, what are Betty's rights and what
damages, if any, will she recover?
Discuss the issues raised, the arguments for both parties and the
applicable law
State your conclusions and the reasons therefore.
Question 4
Ann wanted to purchase a gift for her boyfriend, Ben. Ann and
Ben went to Ritz Jewelry to select the gift. Charles, the store
manager, assisted them. Ann explained to Charles that she
wanted to purchase a gift for Ben, and that Ben could select
whatever he wanted. Ben chose a large gold chain costing
$2,400.
Ann and Ritz executed a written installment sales contract
which identified the chain as “solid 18K gold,” stated the
purchase price of $2,400 which was to be paid by Ann in
twenty-four equal monthly payments.
Ben wore the gold chain proudly, but the relationship with Ann
ended a few months later. When the two parted, Ann made it
clear that Ben could keep the gold chain. Ben subsequently took
the chain to another jeweler for cleaning and then discovered
that the chain was not solid gold after all, but rather was gold
plated and the thin gold plating was wearing off the chain. Ben
decided to make a claim directly against Ritz for
misrepresenting the chain’s quality, without involving Ann.

8. When Ben made the claim against Ritz, Ritz informed Ben that
Ritz had assigned the contract and its right to receive payments
from Ann to CreditCo, a finance company. Ritz had previously
notified Ann of the assignment. Ann had paid six of the twenty-
four payments due under the installment sales contract.
However, when Ann learned that the gold chain was not solid
18K gold as represented, she stopped making any more
payments to CreditCo.
1. Can Ben prevail in a breach of contract action against Ritz?
Discuss.
2. Is the assignment by Ritz to CreditCo effective? Discuss.
3. Can CreditCo prevail in a breach of contract action against
Ann? Discuss.
For each of the above questions:
Discuss the issues raised, the arguments for both parties and the
applicable law
State your conclusions and the reasons therefore.