Henrietta Lacks’s family reaches settlement in extracted cell lawsuit

[Toni]

I just want to ensure that everyone understands that the cells taken were from tumors and tissues removed as part of treatment. Mrs. Lacks’ cells were NOT known to be so valuable. Harvesting of cells from patients was likely fairly routine at a research hospital such as John’s Hopkins. John’s Hopkins did not ever sell cell lines derived from Mrs. Lacks’ cell but passed them along to other researchers. I believe the line of cells continues today.

 

[Gospel]

Thanks for that Toni.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just want to ensure that everyone understands that the cells taken were from tumors and tissues removed as part of treatment. Mrs. Lacks’ cells were NOT known to be so valuable. Harvesting of cells from patients was likely fairly routine at a research hospital such as John’s Hopkins. John’s Hopkins did not ever sell cell lines derived from Mrs. Lacks’ cell but passed them along to other researchers. I believe the line of cells continues today.

Great, such wonderful Intelligent Design! The cells that live forever are the ones that kill us. Puny god.

 

[Elixir]

I had already read this story elsewhere so I only clicked this thread to see how long it took to get the expected reply from the expected person(s). Faster than I bet myself. I owe me a coffee.

Yup. There are some here who can be counted on to attack any black female who garners positive attention - even if they’re long dead.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, hence why the suit was not against Johns Hopkins. Though, it is still wrong to "donate" that which you do not own, and JHU to their credit has not only long since apologized to the Lacks family for this misconduct, but also led the entire American medical system in making substantial changes to their own policies concerning informed consent. Their institutional ethics guidelines are, to this day, much more morally rigorous than what the law technically requires.

 

[Politesse]

The company's decision to settle out of court indicates to me that they might indeed acknowledge the value they've derived from Lack's cells, and as a result had no qualms in compensating the family. Which seems reasonable to me.

"No qualms" is a bit of an exaggeration. But they do seem to have come to a positive conclusion (albeit given the sealed nature of the settlement, difficult to assess one way or the next).

When companies continue to press the limits and grey areas of legality from one decade to the next, it obliges the government to eventually step in and regulate the living hell out of their industries. As the government characteristically bungles this job, at least in most cases, I don't think this is a positive trend, but it can only be countered by comapnies acting honorably in the first place whether or not the law requires it, and there is always going to be a bad actor among the bunch (or two or five) that takes the rest down with them.

 

[Gospel]

The qualms was concerning the act of compensating the family. I also used the word might. But that's all little shit in this big picture.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm just curious is there is a precedent for funding families for tissue taken in the 50s. It obviously isn't something she wanted to keep. And whether it was taken without consent or not, did this occur for others? Are they entitled? It sounds like her cells are famous.

I'm not certain I'm really big on a payout like this, if it was even much of a payout. Her cells didn't cure things. That took a lot of work from the cells to obtain.

 

[Politesse]

I'm just curious is there is a precedent for funding families for tissue taken in the 50s. It obviously isn't something she wanted to keep. And whether it was taken without consent or not, did this occur for others? Are they entitled? It sounds like her cells are famous.

Normally, a family would have no way of even finding out this had happened, hence why there is next to no precedent to compare the case to. The Lacks family only found out because a chance contamination of the line led to their being suddenly inundated by mysterious requests for fresh blood samples through the mid 70s. It took years of work on the part of an investigative reporter to unmask the entirety of the story as it is now known.

They are not "entitled", that is clear enough. By the law, there is no specific law that might govern this uncommon situation. But in a conversion lawsuit, you don't have to demonstrate that the other party has broken the law, only that they used your property - and there is plenty of precedence for concluding that your body is your effective property - has been used in a manner you did not consent to and which caused you some manner of injury.

 

[Derec]

They are not "entitled", that is clear enough.

And yet, they are getting millions. I doubt a while family would have gotten such a settlement.

By the law, there is no specific law that might govern this uncommon situation. But in a conversion lawsuit, you don't have to demonstrate that the other party has broken the law,

That is one crazy feature of the US legal system - you can be sued even if you did not break the law.
Like the infamous McD coffee lawsuit - there is no law mandating that coffee must be served lukewarm, lest some old woman pours it all over her crotch. And yet, an idiot jury found for the clumsy old woman and gave her millions.

only that they used your property - and there is plenty of precedence for concluding that your body is your effective property

But is it the property of your relatives? And what about statutes of limitations?
This happened 70 years ago!

- has been used in a manner you did not consent to and which caused you some manner of injury.

Pray tell, what "manner of injury" was caused to Lacks' descendens by the use of their relative's cell lines?

 

[Derec]

It made me wonder how many cells or whatever were collected from patients without their knowledge. Was race an issue in the process, if the process was even a thing.

My understanding is that at the time it was not customary to seek consent for taking cell lines.
I do not see why Lacks' descendens should get to apply today's bioethical standards to what happened in 1951. I do not think they would have been able to were it not for race.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It made me wonder how many cells or whatever were collected from patients without their knowledge. Was race an issue in the process, if the process was even a thing.

My understanding is that at the time it was not customary to seek consent for taking cell lines.
I do not see why Lacks' descendens should get to apply today's bioethical standards to what happened in 1951.

And if the tissue was taken in such a way today, regarding current bioethical standards, what would they (or any patient) be entitled to?

 

[Derec]

Well there is now precedent for compensation for the donors. Though according to your hypothesis if the family of a white woman made a similar claim theirs would be denied. I guess we won’t know until it is tried.

I think it is naive to think that race played no role in the settlement here.
Just like with police shooting settlements, where there are no cases of a white family being able to get millions for their thug son even when the son was armed and the shooting was deemed justified.

 

[Derec]

The depiction of Ms Lack’s family as greedy taking advantage of their race to feed their greed is pure bigoted conjecture.

The family hired the racist hearse-chaser Ben Crump as their lawyer. That should tell you all you need to know about the character of the family.

 

[Derec]

While I can understand why some might argue that the family isn't entitled to financial compensation, what I find troubling is the apparent lack of consideration shown to the deceased, whose contribution has significantly advanced the healthcare industry and generated substantial financial gains for many.

I think Henretta Lacks has always been treated respectfully when her cell line was discussed.

At the very least, providing for the healthcare needs of the deceased's immediate family would have been nice.
But that would be black privilege so never mind.

Black privilege is treating black people better or with special consideration because of their race.

 

[Derec]

That doesn't even make sense. This was settled with the company, not ordered by a judge, and if you think those kinds of promise-and-a-handshake settlements generally favor poor black families over well to do whites (or the major American tech companies they might want to sue)... I dunno man, we live in different countries.

I think you live in the state of denial, not in California.
In this country blacks routinely get multimillion dollar settlements when whites would not. I already mentioned justified police shootings.
Another example is some black women getting millions for being kicked out of a wine tour for being loud. And by the way, that happened in California. So I have no idea what country you live in. There are other cases of black people suing for supposed discrimination and walking away with millions despite actual damages not being anywhere near that.

That is certainly not true in the United States, that backroom deals with major corporations usually favor Blacks or poor folks. The very idea is absurd.

They might not favor poor folks, but they certainly favor blacks in recent decades.

John Moore, Jonathan Greenburg, the Myriad decision, and several others

When did those cases happen? Also in the 50s? Any of their families got millions? Do you have links?

 

[Politesse]

That doesn't even make sense. This was settled with the company, not ordered by a judge, and if you think those kinds of promise-and-a-handshake settlements generally favor poor black families over well to do whites (or the major American tech companies they might want to sue)... I dunno man, we live in different countries.

I think you live in the state of denial, not in California.
In this country blacks routinely get multimillion dollar settlements when whites would not. I already mentioned justified police shootings.
Another example is some black women getting millions for being kicked out of a wine tour for being loud. And by the way, that happened in California. So I have no idea what country you live in. There are other cases of black people suing for supposed discrimination and walking away with millions despite actual damages not being anywhere near that.

That is certainly not true in the United States, that backroom deals with major corporations usually favor Blacks or poor folks. The very idea is absurd.

They might not favor poor folks, but they certainly favor blacks in recent decades.

John Moore, Jonathan Greenburg, the Myriad decision, and several others

When did those cases happen? Also in the 50s? Any of their families got millions? Do you have links?

I'm not your clerk.

I'm not the one making completely absurd claims.

And I would be shocked anough to drop my coffee if you suddenly stopped telling the same lies over and over year after year because one time, I linked you to some easily available statistics. While confidential settlements are by their nature difficult to settle, most forensic economists will tell you straight to your face that they value settlements to black women lower than almost any other group, as they are expected to have a lifetime income lower than almost any other group. Lawyers aren't particularly trying to be "fair" across racial lines, and they generally aren't.

 

[TomC]

I believe that a more accurate description of this is "A bunch of shark lawyers take a big bite out of some deep pocketed pharmaceutical companies. Some poor black folks helped and probably got a bit of the winnings of the litigation lottery."

Of course, the victims here are the giant pharmaceutical companies. Among the richest and most predatory of U.S. corporations, which puts them in rarified company.
I'm unable to work up a single tear of sympathy.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

I believe that a more accurate description of this is "A bunch of shark lawyers take a big bite out of some deep pocketed pharmaceutical companies. Some poor black folks helped and probably got a bit of the winnings of the litigation lottery."

Of course, the victims here are the giant pharmaceutical companies. Among the richest and most predatory of U.S. corporations, which puts them in rarified company.
I'm unable to work up a single tear of sympathy.
Tom

You're uninterested in the content of the case?

 

[TomC]

You're uninterested in the content of the case?

The case has been going on for years. I've learned a good bit about it.
Tom