ATTACHMENT

PART1

Individually , navigate to the Breach Portal https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf

on the Office for Civil Rights website and review the list of breaches of unsecured protected health information. 

 

As a team, discuss the following: 

· The states where the breaches occurred 

· The covered entity types 

· The number of individuals affected in each breach 

· The month and year when the breaches were reported 

· The type of breach 

· The location of breached information 

 

Look for trends and extract any information that can be useful for compliance within the organization. 

 write a 150- to 300-word summary of your findings and discussion. 

 

Format your citations according to APA guidelines. 

PART2

Christoph Lengauer makes an analogy stating that cells should be treated with the same value as oil. He states, "Why not treat valuable cells like oil? When you find oil on somebody's property, it doesn't automatically belong to them, but they do get a portion of the profits." (p. 267). This excerpt from the novel raises some ethical issues to be examined in this discussion. 

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words: 

· Do you agree with Lengauer’s analogy? Why or why not? 

· Think about some of the interactions that occurred throughout the book. What examples can you find that would now be prohibited by the laws, statutes, and acts covered this week? 

· What contemporary ethics and laws in health care practice do Lengauer’s views go against?

PART3

RESPOND TO EACH CLASSMATE RESPONSE WITH 50 WORDS MINIMUM.

R1: I do not agree with Lengauer’s analogy over comparing cells to oil. People find it easy to pass judgment or thoughts on something that has not affected them or that they have not gone. While I am not accounting that to Lengauer solely, what I am able to say is that it will never be his place nor anyone else’s to make that decision. Anything that is attached to your body belongs to and should be non-negotiable. While it might sound extreme, his reference is as if to say your body does not fully belong to you which to me makes absolutely no sense. The only time that this makes any version of sense is when one is a minor, and their parent or guardian has control. Outside of that, there should be no reason that this statement should ever be taken seriously. For example, when a mother births a child and is not married, the child automatically belongs to the state according to the state in which I live. While the stated should not have any reason to take the child, the possibility is always present. That mother or parent has to pay and file for custody of their own child in order to avoid any possibility of such a horrific event to occur despite the fact that the child was created, carried, and birthed by her. When I was pregnant 2 years ago, I was asked on multiple occasions about donating the placenta, stem cells, and other biological infrastructures for research purposes. Placentas are used in research to find cures, treatments, as well as alternative pain management treatments (Verter, PhD, 2021). At that time, I was not offered any possibility of a patten, and was required to sign a form practically signing my rights away as the donation would be listed as such. If we continue to give away our rights we will find ourselves fighting a battle we are not prepared to find.

References:

Verter, PhD, F. (2021). It’s the morning before your C-section, and someone wants you to donate your placenta.  https://parentsguidecordblood.org/en/news/its-morning-your-c-section-and-someone-wants-you-donate-your-placenta#:~:text=Currently%20in%20the%20United%20States,%2C%20and%20more2%2D8 .

R2: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Lengauer's analogy. Cells, or "valuable cells," as he puts it, are not like oil; they belong to someone. Oil, on the other hand, when found on someone's property, an argument can be made about where your property line starts and ends. The property owner should be compensated for the use of their land and the inconvenience. Ownership of the oil itself can be hard to determine who it belongs to. If we are to compare, I think that a person's cells should fall under copyright and royalty laws. If we take the HeLa cells, I believe the lacks family should own the rights to these cells, and if the cells are used to produce a product, the family should have royalties. Copy right laws would protect how the cells can be used and sold.  

Today, health care providers must attain permission from and give information to their patients before any procedure. In the Henrietta lacks story, I can think of two occasions this did not happen. First of course, with Henrietta and two, doctors were sent to the Lacks family home to retrieve blood samples from the family. The doctors did not inform the family of the reason for the test. Instead, we're told they were drawing blood to detect if they had the same cancer that killed Henrietta, even though they knew there was no test to detect cancer.

R3: While Lengauer’s desire to compensate the family monetarily is well intentioned, I do not agree with the analogy. He feels that valuable cells should be treated like oil which is as valuable as human cells. Though oil can be sold in the open market, human cells should not be given the same treatment, as this could create a myriad of ethical issues. It's especially important to note that the belief that people always get compensated if oil is found on their property is not totally true.

The FDA currently has regulations on the protection of human subjects, therefore specimens intended for research can be collected only with the donors’ consent. Today, the collection of Henrietta’s cells with our permission would be against the law. Some people believe that there should be some compensation for donating specimens, especially if the tissue is to be used in revenue generating projects. Others, which consist of the majority, believe that there should be no compensation for specimen donations.

According to the FDA, research participants are not offered money for their participation in research. However, participants are compensated based on time spent and transportation to the research site as outlined in the informed consent.

R4: In focusing in on the issue of compensation, if individuals were to be compensated for cells and tissues that are used in medical research and that otherwise would have been discarded in the course of routine medical treatment; what would be the impact on accessibility and on the ability for researchers to conduct research? Any thoughts?