Prisoners’ Autonomy

1037 Words5 Pages
In the 1950’s a doctor by the name of Chester Southham experiments with the cancer cells of a woman named Henrietta Lacks. He decided to use prisoners as subjects and found a willing population of inmates at an Ohio prison into which he injected cancer cells. Chester Southham’s desire to test the effects of HeLa cells on subjects with cancer and healthy subjects became concerning because he used prisoners as his test subjects. The prisoners from an Ohio prison consented to the injection of Henrietta’s cancer cells, but some people argue that we should not allow this type of research to be performed on prisoners again because the environment (prison) effects their ability to make autonomous decisions. Even though his experiments were controversial, Henrietta’s cancer cells were special because they were the “first immortal human cells ever grown in culture and thus vital to the development and discovery of several medical landmarks like the polo vaccine, cloning, gene mapping, and in vitro fertilization.” (Zielinski) Of the many ethical issues that arise in the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, one of the most important topics revolves around the autonomy of the prisoner’s consent of such dangerous experimentation. The general definition of autonomy is self-governance. Autonomy can be broken down into two areas. First, “autonomous behavior is governed by plans of action that have been formulated through deliberation or reflection.” (p.83) Secondly, it must be intentional and voluntary, “from choices people make based upon their own life plans.” (p.83) Terrance Ackerman describes four conditions that can constrict a person’s ability to act autonomously. Out of the four constraints; physical, cognitive, psychological, and social, the prisoners are affected physically and therefore can not make autonomous decisions. According to Terrence F.

More about Prisoners’ Autonomy

Open Document