Response to Becca Bailey

I agree with the ideas and believe Becca Bailey presents in her paper. She realizes that the book, TILOHL, is an important story, and should be recognized by the public. She believes it is beneficial for the community to be more aware of doctor’s researches in the medical field. Becca states that doctors do not have the right to be “sneaky," when their role in the hospital is to be trusted. Unlike Henrietta, patients deserve the right to the specimen in their own biological nature.  
When asked her opinion on the obstacles the author, Rebecca Skloot, and a reader could face, she brought up many valuable struggles. Since, the novel takes place in different time periods, the amounts of research could have been hard to relate and keep in align. This time span of material would make it tough finding necessary and reliable scientific information.  Becca also states that Skloot could have dealt with emotional struggles while learning information about Henrietta poor family. As a reader, Becca stipulates many challenges you could face throughout the story. She finds it frustrating learning about the role doctor’s play in the novel, and how they used Henrietta’s biological material without permission.  Readers can also face emotional pain while discovering the position that Henrietta’s family had on the matter. While Henrietta’s cells were making millions in the science world, her family suffered everyday by living on welfare. 
Overall, I agree with Becca’s statements about the book. We both think that this novel is important to be read by the public, but readers ought to be aware of the possible emotional challenges they could face by learning about the material. Both of us stand strong in the idea that this book discusses a moral issue since Henrietta’s family was unaware of her cells being distributed. The scientific and moral matters TILOHL discusses are matters that all Americans should recognize.