Final answer:
In Henrietta Lacks's case, the 'question of consent' refers to the lack of informed consent when her tissues were taken. The second issue is whether compensation is due when commercial value is developed from tissues taken without consent; her cells led to significant medical advances without her family's financial benefit.
Step-by-step explanation:
Ruth Faden, a bioethicist, identified two pivotal issues in the case of Henrietta Lacks. The first issue, "question of consent", revolves around the fact that at the time Lacks's tissues were harvested, there were no clear laws or guidelines concerning informed consent. Due to this, her cells were taken without her knowledge or permission, a practice that is now considered both unethical and illegal.
The second issue is whether moral or legal restitution is owed when something of commercial value is developed from a person's tissues without their consent. Henrietta's cells gave rise to the HeLa cell line, which has been of immense commercial value, contributing to significant scientific advancements, including the development of the polio vaccine and AIDS research. Despite these contributions, neither Henrietta Lacks nor her family received any financial benefit from the commercialization of HeLa cells, raising questions about compensation and recognition.
These issues underscore the complex interplay between medical ethics, patients' rights, and the commercialization of biomedical research, highlighting the necessity for a clear and just ethical framework in scientific practices.