>


so much wealth was stolen by medical researchers, how could you possibly expect them to pay it back?

But like... yes?
I mean if it's simply not possible for it all to be paid back, then it can't be paid back can it? 
What are we going to do? Shut down all future medical research and divert that money into the decendants of those unethically researched on? Clearly this would be a worse outcome for society.
Or just pay off the loudest voices by diverting some of the money for future medical research? Again this isn't great for society, and is inequitable in that those who can afford a loud voice get the money.
There's little value in paying off the decendants. They've no financially worse off for the previous research, it's not like they can show a financial loss. The ownership of the material at the time wasn't established as belonging to her estate either. 
From a utilitarian perspective this is a total non-starter in terms of ethics.
and the practice of using patient biopsy tissue for research was relatively routine. 

Do you have any information regarding legal patient consent requriements in this matter? As far as I know, all of this happened without Lacks' consent.
EDIT: clarified legal requriements >

That was the controversy. I read the book on her and the it all happened without her consent nor knowledge. It seems valid to want compensation for that >

At the time, no one was getting consent. Shouldn’t everyone be compensated? Isn’t better medicine a compensation itself? >

But I think, or at least hope, we can all acknowledge that that was a bad practice. Does the fact that an organization wronged someone within the confines of the law necessitate that they should never have to make amends? The topic of reparations today is a controversial one, but I think if we simplified it by looking at immediately after slavery was abolished, I think most people would agree to a system where the slave owners paid reparations for their ill gotten gains under slavery. Granted, we are about one human lifetime out from Henrietta's death, but it is still a shorter period of time than slavery and her descendents could undeniably have benefited from her being fairly compensated. The Constitution specifies you can't go to jail for an act that became illegal after you did it, but you need not break the law to owe damages in civil court. >

I think the opposition here is, where do we draw the line? If you just open the floodgates for descendants of people who didn't consent to testing before 'x' date, it'll be a madhouse of people clamoring for their reparations money. Whereas if we don't set that precedent, some (dead) people won't get compensation, but neither does anyone else, whose claim may or may not be legitimate. And then we can put the whole thing behind us and move forward together, having learned from our ancestor's mistakes. >

To me, this argument boils down to "so much wealth was stolen by medical researchers, how could you possibly expect them to pay it back?" I get acknowledging historical context is important, but this was the 1950s, we knew that samples for medical testing had monetary value, and we knew that taking something of value from someone without permission, or even compensation is wrong. This isn't a case of collective morals not being as evolved as they are today, or of society not having the perspective to see the wrong in this situation, it is a case of businesspeople exploiting a new and unregulated commodity.