"Was there a point?" Yes. Absolute relativism and extreme individualism produces a long line of possible injustices, and I wouldn't advocate taking that route.
Firstly, it's pure folly to judge the collecting doctors 60 years ago by today's standards.
To me, the idea of calling something illegal or immoral sixty years after the fact, going back to a time before the current laws and guidelines were in place, is pointless.
Sure, the law may have changed. That is, tossing in a pretty ambitious assumption that it's now consistently applied
in a way that lives up to the spirit of the change. (On many cases dealing with racial inequality, that simply isn't so.) I would fuss more about the morality part, though. If it is really pointless to be critical of the same society so many years earlier, then I'm inclined to say: Really? Then does anyone ever really learn. I'm not convinced that our institutional practices and our public norms are the same thing. Given that divergence, then it makes sense to point out some of the differences that persist between norms and practices over a long history.
If one simply says, oh society is different now, all that effectively gets whitewashed. The logic of 'many people thought differently then' could easily be used to say we shouldn't study how any number of terrible things were organized and justified (almost always against some resistance) -- whether in short awful periods or in subtle, creeping ways that are still continuing.
Secondly, malpractice comes from two sources: malice and incompetence. One could argue incompetence by today's standards, failing to obtain consent, but we're talking about an era that came before modern medical ethics and before modern social reform.
So let's see. Trail of Tears... Holocaust... Atomic bombings... World overlooking Rwanda... A decade or so back, there was a serious lack of ethics around Srebrenica, in what was not long ago a presumptively modern European country. Or, we can take something more individual like torture in Singapore or Burma or Iraq. Perhaps by my "elitist, over-universalizing" standards these were all local, contained variations in ethics that cannot be judged usefully or discussed to any useful ends now by others with different values. And if the arbitrer is going to be a question of "Was it legal then?" Well... Medical malpractice, systematic malnutrition, Ponzi schemes, all often technically quite legal. Never mind that say at least half the country doesn't want to pay for them.
Where does this relativist trend end? While you can say you've provided an elegant explanation, I don't see many lessons in that approach except maybe "live and let die [and just be happy it isn't your own people on the dying end today]."
Second, what did she cure? What did she create? What did she invent? Nothing. What did she contribute to? Testing. What harm was done by the taking of samples? None. Should you pay her descendants for the use of her cells? No, not really. At most I could see an argument for paying her what one would pay a test subject today for cells... oh, right, they don't pay them. Hm.
This is based on a common to the West, but terribly individualist notion of justice. Much the same argument could be used to say that because Black slaves contributed to a specific agricultural system we no longer have in the US, and because no individual Whites living today directly wronged them then as individuals, we should toss affirmative action. That is overlooking the relative systematic damage that a community suffers over generations when others can freely take benefits from their bodies. Notice many Blacks can still not afford to use those nifty medicines made from their own cells.