Ethics On Edge

“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man’s lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one’s self.” – Max Stirner

What is meant by ‘medical freedom’? This quote from Stirner delves into the concept of freedom as a self-directed and self-assertive endeavor, rather than a passive or bestowed state. This philosophical perspective resonates deeply within the landscape of medical ethics, particularly in the context of patient autonomy and self-determination.

In medical ethics, the principle of patient autonomy is foundational, emphasizing the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, free from coercion or undue influence. Stirner’s assertion that freedom requires active self-determination and responsibility aligns with the notion of patient autonomy, highlighting the importance of individuals taking an active role in their own medical care and decision-making process – a historically persistent battle between authorities of public health (or at least self-proclaimed, unqualified politicians) and the general population. As we’ve seen in recent times, public health and medical directives are ordered by “officials”, yet they somehow evade the same directives – showcasing the theater that is public health at the government level (read ‘Phantom Democracy’ by Carl Boggs – covered in the next post).

One genuine example that exemplifies Stirner’s idea of asserting one’s own autonomy in the medical care landscape is the case of Henrietta Lacks, whose cells were harvested without her knowledge or consent for medical research. Henrietta Lacks (born as Loretta Pleasant) underwent evaluation for cervical cancer in the 1950s at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Without her consent, cells taken from her tumor were used to create the first immortalized human cell line, known as HeLa cells, which have been instrumental in numerous medical breakthroughs, including the development of the polio vaccine and advancements in cancer research. Copies of her cells have since been used over 80,000 times worldwide in the last seven decades

HeLa cells were the first human cells to survive and thrive outside the body in a test tube. Her cells alerted the world to the existence of immortal human cells. This was important to the medical research industry as recycling immortal cells during studies saved costs, and the potential for future advancements created profits.

Henrietta Lacks’ story highlights the importance of patient autonomy and informed consent in medical research. Despite being unaware of the use of her cells and not having given explicit consent, her cells were used extensively in research without her or her family’s knowledge for decades. The outcome of this controversy presents a dichotomy, where despite neglecting patient autonomy, significant advancements were made – an argument used to justify encroaching upon the self-agency of Mrs. Lacks. However, understanding the history of Johns Hopkins Hospital as a hegemonic institution aligned with corporate values (now a complex intelligence arm as a result of end-stage capitalism), which undermines the sanctity of medical freedom and human choice for profits. The reason Mrs. Lacks and her family were not told of her incredible cells until decades later is that shared profits from transformative research and advancements were too much to risk for those proclaiming this lucrative endowment.

Henrietta Lacks’ legacy has spurred discussions about medical ethics, patient rights and the need for greater transparency and consent in medical research. Her story places a public microscope on the background operations of medical instutitions as to reveal the larger industry-wide corruption. Her story serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for medical freedom and the imperative of respecting individuals’ autonomy and rights in the face of potentially corrupt and exploitative medical practices.