Do you think that cells are still part of that person/individual when they are removed?
for example the Hela cells...
- JazSincLv 76 years agoFavorite Answer
Nope. A "person" is partly defined by the consciousness that is an emergent property of the activity of the brain. A tumor that's been removed is no longer part of the person.
- RolandLv 76 years ago
A person is identified by his brain - personality, intellect, emotions, etc.
Some people obviously think there is something like a soul in the other parts.
If there's "soul" in my cells, then I've spread a lot of my soul all around the house - hopefully most have been vacuumed up and thrown in the trash.
Should I have saved them? Should I be sad?
This whole idea seems silly to me. Such a discussion has begun primarily because Henrietta Lacks was never compensated for "giving up" her cells.
But they were tumor cells, for heaven sakes - she wanted to (needed to) get rid of them!! Some do-gooders eventually came up with the idea that she had been "used" without being compensated.
So her descendants should be compensated? For what?
- AnonymousLv 76 years ago
Do you mean does the person the cells were taken from OWN or have any rights over their cells and tissues? I think they absolutely should, but the Supreme Court disagrees with me (in their typical corporations over people style). If you mean are cells "people" -- no.
- 6 years ago
I'am not a biologist but to my point of view I indeed say yes cells removed from any individual is part of them.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Asst ProfLv 76 years ago
In response to your personalized question to me: The YAHOO system does not allow answers to be given directly. There's something messed up. I agree with the answer that JazSinc gave.Source(s): 40 years teaching Biology