(Image: NBC News)

Oura Rings are part of a growing wave of health technology designed to make tracking your body feel simple and almost invisible. Instead of wearing a watch or carrying a device, users wear a smooth, lightweight ring on their finger that quietly collects health data throughout the day and night. While Oura Rings are often marketed as wellness tools rather than medical devices, they have still sparked serious conversations in the medical and scientific world about how reliable consumer health technology really is.

At its core, an Oura Ring is a biometric tracker. Inside the ring are tiny sensors that measure heart rate, heart rate variability, body temperature changes, breathing rate, blood oxygen levels, movement, and sleep stages. The ring uses light-based sensors that detect blood flow through the finger, which is actually one of the most accurate places on the body to collect this type of data. All of this information syncs to an app, where it is turned into daily scores focused on sleep, readiness, and activity.

The main purpose of the Oura Ring is not to diagnose illness, but to help users notice patterns. If someone consistently sleeps poorly, feels run down, or shows unusual changes in body temperature or heart rate, the ring may highlight those shifts. For many users, this kind of feedback encourages better sleep habits, rest days, or stress management. Unlike many fitness trackers, Oura focuses more on recovery and long-term health trends rather than step counts or workout intensity alone.

Oura first entered the market in 2015 through crowdfunding, gaining attention for its minimalist design and focus on sleep science. As wearable technology became more popular, Oura stood out by prioritizing comfort and continuous wear, especially overnight. Over time, professional athletes, researchers, and everyday users helped push the product into the mainstream. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Oura gained even more attention when researchers explored whether temperature changes tracked by the ring could help identify early signs of illness, though this research was experimental and not diagnostic.

When it comes to credibility, the medical community tends to view Oura Rings as useful but limited. Studies have shown that Oura’s heart rate and sleep tracking are fairly accurate when compared to clinical tools, especially for trends over time rather than exact numbers. Doctors and researchers often agree that wearable data can be helpful for understanding sleep quality and recovery, but they also stress that no consumer wearable should replace medical testing or professional evaluation.

It is also important to note that Oura Rings are not FDA-approved medical devices. They are classified as general wellness products, meaning they are designed to support healthy habits rather than detect or treat disease. This distinction matters, especially for teens, because it sets clear boundaries on what the ring can and cannot do. A low readiness score or temperature change does not automatically mean someone is sick, and relying on the ring alone could lead to unnecessary worry.

Overall, Oura Rings represent how far personal health technology has come. They can help users become more aware of their bodies, routines, and recovery in a way that feels approachable and non-intrusive. As long as users understand their limits and treat the data as informational rather than medical advice, Oura Rings can be a useful addition to modern wellness rather than a replacement for real healthcare.

Works Cited

Business Wire. “Study from Top U.S. Hospital Finds Oura Ring Most Accurate Consumer Sleep Tracker Tested in Four-Stage Sleep Classification.” Business Wire, 10 Oct. 2024, www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241010549704/en/Study-from-Top-US-Hospital-Finds-Oura-Ring-Most-Accurate-Consumer-Sleep-Tracker-Tested-in-Four-Stage-Sleep-Classification . Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

Oura Health. “2024 Sensors: Oura Ring Validation Study.” Oura Ring Blog, ouraring.com/blog/2024-sensors-oura-ring-validation-study/ . Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

Oura Health. “Oura Ring Accuracy Validation Study with the University of Tokyo.” Oura Ring Blog, ouraring.com/blog/oura-ring-accuracy-validation-study-university-of-tokyo/ . Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

Oura Health. “Science and Research.” Oura Ring, ouraring.com/science-and-research . Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

Oura Health. “Product Safety and Use.” Oura Support, support.ouraring.com/hc/lv/articles/360025428394-Product-Safety-amp-Us  e.  Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. “Accuracy of the Oura Ring for Measuring Sleep and Heart Rate Metrics.” PubMed, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35622397/ . Accessed 30 Dec. 2025. PubMed, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35622397/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. “Evaluation of Oura Ring Sleep Stage Classification Performance.” PubMed, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39460013/ .  Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. “Wearable Ring Technology for Long-Term Health Monitoring.” PubMed, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40108409/ .  Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

(Image: Florida Medical Clinic)

Scroll through TikTok or Instagram for five minutes and you will probably see something about fillers, Botox, veneers, or nose jobs. Cosmetic procedures used to feel distant, like something only celebrities or wealthy adults did. Now they are discussed openly by teenagers, sometimes even advertised to them. This shift raises an important medical ethics question: just because cosmetic procedures are possible, does that mean they are appropriate for teens?

Cosmetic procedures are medical interventions done primarily to change appearance rather than treat illness. These can range from noninvasive treatments like lip fillers and chemical peels to surgical procedures like rhinoplasty. While some procedures are medically necessary, such as reconstructive surgery after an injury, purely cosmetic procedures exist in a gray area, especially when minors are involved.

One of the biggest ethical concerns is consent. In medicine, informed consent means a patient fully understands the risks, benefits, and long term effects of a procedure before agreeing to it. Teens, while capable of making many thoughtful decisions, are still developing cognitively and emotionally. The part of the brain responsible for impulse control and long term planning continues developing into the mid twenties. This makes it harder to fully grasp permanent consequences, especially when decisions are influenced by trends or peer pressure.

Parental consent is often required for cosmetic procedures on minors, but that does not automatically make the decision ethical. Parents may also be influenced by social norms or by wanting their child to fit in. Ethical medicine requires that doctors prioritize the patient’s well being over profit or social expectations. Performing an unnecessary procedure on a teen whose body is still changing can conflict with this responsibility.

Another concern is body image. Studies consistently show that teens are especially vulnerable to appearance based pressure. Social media filters, edited photos, and influencers create unrealistic standards that are nearly impossible to meet naturally. When cosmetic procedures are presented as quick fixes, they can reinforce the idea that normal features are flaws that need correction. From an ethical standpoint, medicine should aim to promote health, not deepen insecurity.

There is also the issue of risk. Even minimally invasive procedures carry potential complications, including infection, nerve damage, scarring, or long term dissatisfaction. Teens may be more likely to regret a procedure as their face and identity continue to change. Ethical practice requires weighing these risks against the actual benefit, which is often subjective and temporary in cosmetic cases.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the issue is not completely black and white. Some teens experience severe distress over certain features, especially if they are linked to bullying or trauma. In these cases, a cosmetic procedure may genuinely improve quality of life. Ethical care involves careful psychological screening, honest conversations, and making sure the decision comes from the teen rather than outside pressure.

Medical ethics is built on principles like autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc. For teen cosmetic procedures, these principles often clash. Respecting autonomy means listening to teens, but beneficence and non-maleficence require doctors to avoid harm. 

As cosmetic medicine becomes more visible, teens deserve accurate information rather than glamorised content. Ethical responsibility does not just fall on doctors, but also on media platforms, parents, and schools. Encouraging critical thinking about beauty standards and emphasising mental health can help teens make informed choices.

Cosmetic procedures are not inherently unethical. The ethical problem arises when vulnerable patients are treated as consumers instead of people still growing into themselves. In a culture that constantly tells teens they are not enough, medical ethics asks a simple but powerful question: is changing the body the best way to help, or is there a deeper issue medicine should not ignore?

Works Cited:

American Society of Plastic Surgeons. "Adolescent Cosmetic Surgery: Ethical Considerations." Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 45, no. 5, 2025, pp. 531–540. https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/45/5/531/8003110.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. "Ethics of Cosmetic Plastic Surgery for Adolescents." AMA Journal of Ethics, Mar. 2005. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/ethics-cosmetic-plastic-surgery-adolescents/2005-03.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

Mott Children’s Health Center. "Teens Too Young for Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures." https://mottnpch.org/reports/teens-too-young-non-surgical-cosmetic-procedures.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

National Library of Medicine. "Adolescent Cosmetic Surgery Outcomes." PubMed, 2008. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18809128/.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

National Library of Medicine. "Psychological Screening for Teen Cosmetic Surgery." PubMed, 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29209695/.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

National Library of Medicine. "Long-Term Satisfaction After Teen Cosmetic Procedures." PubMed, 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29777605/.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

Plasticsurgery.org. "Briefing Paper: Plastic Surgery for Teenagers." https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/briefing-papers/briefing-paper-plastic-surgery-for-teenagers.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

ScienceDirect. "Ethical Considerations in Adolescent Cosmetic Medicine." ScienceDirect, 2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235258782500227X.  Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.

University of Michigan Medical School. "Parents Support Teens Getting Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures." https://medschool.umich.edu/health-lab/1-6-parents-support-teens-getting-non-surgical-cosmetic-procedures.  Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

WebMD. "Teens and Plastic Surgery: What Parents Should Know." https://www.webmd.com/teens/teens-plastic-surgery.  Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.

(Image: BrainFacts)

Marijuana has become one of the most debated substances in the United States. In some states it is treated like a routine consumer product, while in others it remains tightly restricted. This split reflects confusion over whether marijuana should be seen as medicine, a harmless recreational drug, or a public health concern. While marijuana can play an important role in medical treatment, recreational use is not something society should encourage. Recreational marijuana harms the body, and the logic used to ban other dangerous substances/chemicals should apply here as well.

Recreational marijuana is legal in roughly half the states, while medical marijuana is legal in most of the rest. A small number of states still prohibit it entirely. This lack of consistency sends mixed messages, especially to teens and young adults. When something is legal in one state and illegal in another, it can seem like the risks are exaggerated or negotiable. In reality, the effects of marijuana on the body do not change based on geography.

Medical marijuana exists for a clear reason. It is used to help patients manage chronic pain, control seizures, reduce nausea from chemotherapy, and treat serious neurological conditions. In these cases, marijuana is not used casually. It is recommended by a doctor, monitored carefully, and taken with the goal of improving or saving a life. Medical use is about necessity, not convenience or entertainment. That distinction matters.

Recreational marijuana does not serve the same purpose. Using marijuana for pleasure exposes the body to unnecessary harm. Regular use can affect memory, attention, and learning. It can increase anxiety and worsen mental health conditions, particularly in people already vulnerable to them. Smoking marijuana can damage the lungs, and even non smoked forms still impact the brain and cardiovascular system. These effects are not rare or hypothetical. They are plainly documented and measurable.

Young adults and teenagers face the highest risk. The brain continues developing well into the mid twenties, especially areas responsible for decision making and impulse control. Recreational marijuana interferes with this development, which can lead to long term cognitive and emotional effects. Legal age thresholds do little to solve this problem. Setting the purchase age at 21 does not make recreational marijuana safe. It simply assumes that turning a certain age reduces biological risk, which is not true. Harm does not disappear at a legal cutoff.

Public health policy often focuses on prevention. The United States bans or restricts many chemicals once they are shown to cause harm. One clear example is DDT, a pesticide that was once widely used. After evidence linked it to cancer risks and environmental damage that affected human health, it was banned for the protection of the public. The same reasoning applies to recreational marijuana. When a substance causes measurable harm, limiting or banning its use is not extreme. It is responsible and just.

The argument that marijuana is natural does not make it harmless. Many natural substances are toxic or dangerous. Public health decisions are based on impact, not origin. Recreational marijuana use increases health risks without providing medical benefit. That makes it fundamentally different from medical marijuana, which is used when benefits outweigh risks.

Medical marijuana should remain available to patients who need it. Recreational marijuana, however, sends the message that harming the body for entertainment is acceptable. Society already recognizes the importance of protecting public health by regulating dangerous substances. Applying that same logic to recreational marijuana is not inconsistent and is rather logical.

In the end, this is not about demonizing a plant or its’ victims. It is about recognizing the difference between treatment and indulgence. Medical marijuana saves lives. Recreational marijuana puts them at risk. If public health truly matters, that distinction should guide the law.

Works Cited: 

Cannabis and Public Health Division. Cannabis Health Effects. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/index.html.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026. 

Cannabis FAQs. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/faq/.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

Cannabis Facts and Stats. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/data-research/facts-stats/index.html.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

State Medical Cannabis Laws. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/about/state-medical-cannabis-laws.html.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Policy Gap with States. Congress.gov, Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12270.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026. 

Association of State Cannabis Legalization With Cannabis Use Disorder and Cannabis Poisoning. JAMA Psychiatry, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2828352.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

DDT: A Brief History and Status. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

Marijuana Laws by State. Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/marijuana-legality-by-state-4844504.  Accessed 25 Dec. 2026.

(Image: ABC News) 

Women of color face significantly higher maternal health risks than white women due to systemic racism, implicit bias in healthcare, unequal access to quality medical services, and socioeconomic barriers, making maternal health inequity a serious public health issue that requires structural reform.

To understand why this issue is so prevalent first we must define what regular maternal care is, and the standards that medical professionals have to meet when it comes to treating their patients. Maternal care is comprehensive healthcare that includes care for the women and baby during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum (6 weeks after birth). This entails that women should have regular checkups during their prenatal care, they should be supported during their birthing process, and cared for to ensure proper recovery after the birth.

This care is crucial to prevent the chance of injury, or even death for both the baby and mother which is why it so important to question why mothers of color, especially Black mothers are one to two times more likely to die in childbirth than White mothers, now this fact could be written off with the argument that external factors to race such as socioeconomic status and lack of access to healthcare are the reasons for this. But studies have consistently shown that high-income Black mothers, who are able to afford better healthcare face higher risks of maternal and infant death during childbirth when compared to the lowest- income White mothers. 

These studies show that race is the key factor behind why Black mothers' needs are being ignored. The stereotypes that portray Black women as aggressive and often more masculine are the same ones that result in their deaths when medical professionals ignore their pain during childbirth, under the assumption that they aren't as “fragile” as White women. 

This mistreatment is seen during prenatal care as well when medical professionals order unwarranted urine toxicology (UTOX) screenings on Black patients more often than white ones under the assumption that Black women are less responsible with their child's health, they also tend to get questioned more if they miss a prenatal appointment then if a White women misses several. This treatment is already unethical and dangerous but even more so when taking into account that Black mothers are already predisposed to having existing conditions like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, all of which are exacerbated by pregnancy.

To combat this there has been advocacy for reform in healthcare systems and education to teach future medical professionals on how to provide culturally sensitive care, along with multiple studies researching biased care practices and discriminatory hospital policies. There has also been a push in expanding access to midwives and doulas to assist births as it has been proven that people who receive care from midwives are less likely to have a preterm birth and C-section and more likely to breastfeed. While Doulas (non-clinical healthcare providers) are great sources of emotional, physical and informational support for a mother, they can play critical roles in advocating for mothers during births where their presence has been associated with reduced risk of low birth weights.

In conclusion, maternal health inequalities faced by women of color are not the result of biological differences or individual choices but rather rooted in systematic racism that encourages bias within the healthcare system. Despite the advances in medicine these disparities persist across the education and income levels emphasizing that race remains a key factor in maternal health. Addressing this prevalent issue requires structural reform, particularly in the education of medical professionals, expanding their skills to include culturally sensitive medical training allows the healthcare system as a whole to improve. By acknowledging these discriminatory practices and dismantling them maternal healthcare can move towards equality and ensure that all mothers are treated with the same life-saving care.

Works cited

“A Research and Policy Approach to Addressing the Black Maternal Health Crisis.” Society for Women’s Health Research, swhr.org/a-research-and-policy-approach-to-addressing-the-black-maternal-health-crisis/ . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

“Maternal Mortality.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Oct. 2023, www.cdc.gov/womens-health/features/maternal-mortality.html . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

“Solving the Black Maternal Health Crisis.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/solving-the-black-maternal-health-crisis . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

Systemic Racism Plays Role in Much Higher Maternal Mortality Rate Among Black Women.” American Society of Anesthesiologists Newsroom, 5 Oct. 2022, www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2022/10/systemic-racism-plays-role-in-much-higher-maternal-mortality-rate-among-black-women . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

Wallace, Michelle E., et al. “Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Maternal Mortality in the United States.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 228, no. 5, 2023, pp. 1–9. PMC, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9148644/ . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

(Image: Valley Medical Aesthetics) 

The idea that shaving makes hair grow back thicker is one of the most common beauty and health myths, passed down through families and reinforced by personal experience. Many people swear that after shaving their legs, face, or arms, the hair feels darker, coarser, or more noticeable. While this belief feels convincing, medical science has shown that shaving does not change how thick, dark, or fast hair grows. The misconception comes from how hair behaves after being cut, not from any real biological change.

Hair growth begins in the hair follicle, which sits beneath the skin. The thickness, color, and growth rate of hair are determined by genetics, hormones, and age. Shaving only affects the part of the hair that has already grown out of the skin. It does not reach the follicle, and it does not alter how the follicle functions. Since the follicle remains unchanged, the hair that grows back is the same hair it would have produced anyway.

So why does shaved hair often feel thicker? The answer lies in the shape of the hair after shaving. Naturally grown hair tapers at the end, meaning the tip is thinner and softer. When hair is shaved, it is cut straight across, leaving a blunt edge. As the hair grows back, that blunt tip can feel stiffer and look darker, especially when it first emerges. This creates the illusion of thicker hair, even though the strand itself has not changed in width or structure.

Another factor is contrast. Freshly shaved skin is smooth, so new hair growth stands out more than hair that has grown gradually over time. This makes regrowth more noticeable and can lead people to believe the hair has changed. On areas like the face or legs, this effect is especially strong, which is why the myth persists.

Scientific studies have repeatedly disproved the idea that shaving affects hair thickness or growth rate. Dermatologists agree that shaving does not stimulate follicles, increase hair density, or cause hormonal changes. If shaving truly made hair grow back thicker, people experiencing hair loss would rely on it as a treatment, which clearly is not the case.

Hormones, however, do play a major role in changes to hair growth. During puberty, pregnancy, or conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome, hair may become thicker or darker due to hormonal shifts. These changes often happen around the same time people begin shaving, which can falsely link shaving to the change in hair texture.

Understanding this myth matters because it influences personal grooming choices and body image, especially among teens. Some avoid shaving out of fear of permanent changes, while others feel frustrated by normal regrowth they assume they caused. Knowing the science helps remove unnecessary anxiety and replaces it with informed decision-making.

In reality, shaving is simply a cosmetic choice. It does not alter your hair at the root, and it does not cause long-term changes in hair growth. The belief that shaving makes hair grow back thicker is a misconception rooted in appearance and texture, not biology. When it comes to hair growth, what happens beneath the skin matters far more than what happens at the surface.

Works Cited

AXA Health. “Will Hair Removal Make My Hair Grow Back Thicker?” AXA Health,

www.axahealth.co.uk/health-insurance/content/health-mythbusters/will-hair-removal-make-my-hair-grow-back-thicker . Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Cleveland Clinic. “Does Shaving Make Hair Thicker?” Cleveland Clinic Health Essentials,

health.clevelandclinic.org/does-shaving-make-hair-thicker .  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Mayo Clinic Staff. “Hair Removal: Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Back Thicker?” Mayo Clinic,

www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/hair-removal/faq-20058427 .  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Scientific American. “Fact or Fiction: If You Shave or Wax Your Hair, Will It Come Back Thicker?” Scientific American,

www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-if-you-shave-or-wax-your-hair-will-come-back-thicker/ .  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Science Times. “Debunking the Myth: Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Thicker or Faster?” Science Times,

www.sciencetimes.com/articles/28547/20201208/debunking-myth-shaving-make-hair-grow-thicker-faster.htm . Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Snopes. “Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Back Thicker?” Snopes,

www.snopes.com/fact-check/thick-talk/ . Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

(Image: American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology) 

Henrietta Lack's regenerating cells, known as HeLa cells, revolutionized modern medicine by enabling groundbreaking scientific discoveries, but their use without her informed consent highlights serious ethical issues in medical research, particularly regarding race, patient rights, and exploitation.

Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman, born August 1, 1920 in Virginia on a tobacco farm, her mother died at an early age which led her to live with her grandfather where she met her future husband David Lacks. They married in 1941 and have five children who they raised in a working class community near Baltimore. Henrietta in 1951 was diagnosed with a cervical tumor and later passed away on October 4th, 1951 due to her cervical cancer diagnosis. 

We remember Henrietta Lacks because of her HeLa cells, these cells are regenerating because they divide continuously, they are even “alive” today- this makes them essentially immortal, doctors and scientists don’t know exactly why her cells are able to continuously divide unlike most human cells which divide around 50 times before self- destructing (apoptosis) to avoid genetic errors. Cancer cells ignore the signals to stop dividing but still die off at some point, especially when outside the environment of the human body. But HeLa is able to propagate and divide outside the human body making it a unique discovery. 

The reason why HeLa cells were so revolutionary is because scientists need human cells grown in labs for testing and studying without harming a human patient, this need for human cell lines before 1951 wasn’t being met because all normal human cells lines die after a few days. HeLa lives forever making it the perfect human cell line to run tests and studies on.

The ethical issue with this however is how HeLa was obtained in the first place,  The original samples that were taken from Henrietta Lacks were without her knowledge or consent when she sought care at John Hopkins Hospital, the samples were later sent to Dr. George Gey who made the discovery and created the name “HeLa” from the patient name "Henrietta Lacks”. 

In the 1950’s it wasn’t common practice or legal requirements for doctors to obtain permission from patients before using their samples for research. It was however common practice at Johns Hopkins to collect tissue samples from most of their cervical cancer patients, and patients at the time didn’t have the right to have a copy of their medical records, and medical professionals could share medical record information for research purposes without restraint.

These practices have now been called into question with many legal changes in America like the “common Rule” which created the ethical guidelines for how scientists could use human research subjects. Still debates over the continued use of HeLa cells and ethical concerns from the Lacks family who demand justice and accountability from companies that profit from HeLa cells commercialization are ongoing. 

However, it is undeniable that Henrietta has contributed to the medical world, with HeLa being essential in developing the polio vaccine, further advancing cancer research, understanding genetics, viruses and gene mapping. Her contribution towards medicine both in terms of research and ethics cannot be ignored, and Lacks herself should be remembered for how her cells changed medicine forever.

Works cited 

“The Complicated History of HeLa Cells & Henrietta Lacks’ Legacy in Biomedical Research.” Stanford Blood Center, stanfordbloodcenter.org/the-complicated-history-of-hela-cells-henrietta-lacks-legacy-in-biomedical-research/ . Accessed 3 Jan. 2026.

“Henrietta Lacks — Upholding the Highest Bioethical Standards.” Johns Hopkins Medicine, www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henrietta-lacks/upholding-the-highest-bioethical-standards . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

Stump, Kristina. “HeLa Cells and the Ethics of Biomedical Research.” Society for History Education, www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/N14_Stump.pdf . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

Zoloth, Laurie, et al. “African-American Women and Their Third Stage: The Ethics of an Historical Oversight.” Hastings Center Report, vol. 46, no. 4, July–Aug. 2016, pp. 6–13. PMC, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5072843/ . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

(Image: ArtStation) 

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was created to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and use of drugs that can be harmful if misused. Under the CSA, licensed physicians are allowed to prescribe controlled substances as long as the prescriptions are issued for a legitimate medical purpose and within the usual course of professional practice. This law is meant to prevent drug abuse while still allowing doctors to treat patients appropriately.

As opioid misuse increased, the government began prosecuting doctors whose prescribing practices appeared to deviate from medical norms. This raised important questions about mens rea, or criminal intent, and whether doctors should face criminal punishment for medical decisions that may later be considered mistakes. These concerns led to the Supreme Court case Ruan v. United States in 2022.

The case involved Dr. Xiulu Ruan and Dr. Shakeel Kahn, two licensed physicians convicted under the CSA for allegedly prescribing controlled substances outside authorized medical practice. At trial, juries were instructed to judge the doctors based on what a reasonable doctor would have done, rather than whether the defendants knowingly acted unlawfully. The lower courts upheld these convictions, prompting Supreme Court review.

The key legal issue was whether the CSA’s requirement that a person act “knowingly or intentionally” applies to the law’s authorization exception. The government argued that doctors could be convicted based solely on objective medical standards. The defendants argued that criminal law requires proof that they knew their conduct was unauthorized.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the mens rea requirement does apply. Once a doctor shows that their prescriptions were issued for a medical purpose, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted outside authorized medical practice. Simply showing that a doctor deviated from standard practices is not enough for a criminal conviction.

This decision is important because it reinforces the principle that criminal liability requires intent or knowledge. It protects physicians from being unfairly prosecuted for good-faith medical decisions while still allowing the government to punish truly intentional misconduct. By clarifying the role of mens rea, the Court ensured that the CSA is applied fairly and consistently with long-standing principles of criminal law.

Works cited

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Ruan v. United States, 20-1410.” LII / Supreme Court Bulletin, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1410 . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

“Opinion: Ruan v. United States (20-1410).” Attorney General Journal, National Association of Attorneys General, https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/opinion-ruan-v-united-states-20-1410/ . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.

Ruan v. United States, No. 20-1410, Supreme Court of the United States, 2022, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf . Accessed 2 Jan. 2026.