The story of medical research has been rather unkind to women, often neglecting the differences of the female anatomy and failing to acknowledge female-specific issues, centering on male ones. However, even when healthcare research does prioritize women, the manner in which it does so often remains quite deplorable, as the case of Henrietta Lacks demonstrates. Representing a case of blatant abuse of women’s rights, as well as unmasked racism and neglect for patient’s dignity, the case of Henrietta Lacks stirred the global community, yet it was only Rebecca Skloot who did Lacks’ narrative justice. By pinpointing the nature of the problem, specifically, outlining racism and disregard for the integrity of women’s bodily autonomy, Skloot condemns the abuse that Lacks suffered, therefore, paving the way to new, fair and unbiased, medical research.
What makes Skloot’s work remarkable is the focus of the narrative. Specifically, Skloot does not diminish the significance and effect of the discovery that researchers made. Indeed, the discovery of HeLa cells can be seen as a massive breakthrough in addressing the issues of social, academic, and racial injustice observed in the case under analysis. Instead, Skloot appeals to the principles of research participants’ autonomy and the fundamental rights of an individual, particularly, the right to bodily integrity: “All I remember is that she had this disease, and right after she died they called me in the office wanting to get my permission to take a sample of some kind. I decided not to let them” (Skloot). Thus, the plight of the narrator becomes especially reasonable and easy to understand.
Moreover, the sociocultural issues that can be seen as prerequisites to the case have been discussed profusely and with due insight in the narrative. Specifically, Skloot outlines the role of racism in the choices that researchers made when deciding to conceal the nature of the medical process to which Lacks was subjected. Namely, Skloot states that African American women, in general, have been silenced for quite long: “But one member of the family remained voiceless: Henrietta’s daughter, Deborah” (Skloot). The presence of racial injustice makes Lacks’ plight particularly sympathetic and her case especially deplorable. Namely, Skloot explains quite expressively that, by denying Lacks her right to opt for participating in the experiment and donating her cells for the sake of the further promotion of cancer research, the people coordinating the experiment showed their disregard for Lacks’ humanity: “Then, matter-of-factly, almost as an afterthought, he said, ‘She was a black woman.’ He erased her name in one fast swipe and blew the chalk from his hands. Class was over” (Skloot). The specified passage renders the indifference of the academia toward vulnerable populations, namely, African American women, as well as women belonging to other minority races and ethnicities. Therefore, Skloot manages to represent the injustice of what has been done to Stock, while also giving credit to researchers for the advancement of healthcare that they promoted.
By emphasizing the injustice and racism that Lacks suffered, having been subjected to extraordinarily biased research with no regard for the bodily autonomy of hers, Skloot addresses Lacks’ case in a very straightforward and unapologetic manner. Skloot manages to balance between acknowledging the importance of research and the necessity to recognize the rights of minority groups, thus, delivering a compelling and thought-provoking message. Encouraging compassion to the victims of systemic injustice, particularly, racism, Skloot creates the narrative that elicits deep sympathy for Lacks and at the same time promotes the importance of combatting racism. Namely, the story focuses on the need to recognize the humanity of oppressed groups, especially African American women, who have been subjected to a variety of injustices, the denial of their dignity and autonomy being one of the most egregious examples.