Ethics are what society accepts. Some people say, that Charlie Gordon's doctors did not act ethically when they performed the surgery to make him smarter. I think that Charlie Gordon's doctors acted ethically he they performed the surgery to make him smarter. First, Charlie wanted to do the research.
Others believe Charlie Gordon's doctors were ethical when performing the surgery on him. According to Arthur Dobrin's article "Five Steps to Better Ethical Decision Making," gathering the facts, making a prediction, identifying the facts, asking whether you could live with the choices you make, and explaining your reasons to others help people to make better ethical decisions . It is arguable the doctors asked all of these questions. The doctors did gather facts about the surgery while watching Algernon change.
Furthermore, the cold fusion incident, along with many other incidents involving pseudoscience and non-science has harmed the reputation of scientists and the scientific community as a whole. With a countless amount of pseudoscience’s and non-sciences “posing as science,” the credibility of what science actually is and the scientific community is at risk (Hansson). When scientists spend their whole day in a lab conducting experiments trying to figure out a cure for cancer or how to better protect the environment, they should not be discredited or take the blame for neither the misconduct of others and/or the spreading of false information that has not been approved by the scientific community. According to the article “What Is Psuedoscience?” by Michael Shermer where he quotes Michael D. Gordin, a historian of science from Princeton University, he reiterates that “No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist” (Gordin).
The Emperor tells himself that the new invention is not worth risking the little beauty he has now. By removing the creator, the Emperor eliminates all possibilities of harm coming to his perfect and beautiful world, but he also denies himself future opportunities to experience new kinds of beauty. Also, by killing the inventor, he discourages other inventors from creating new things that would benefit the country. The emperor has misplaced his belief in the outcomes of taking a risk. He denies himself and his country new opportunities that would lead to growth and betterment in their society.
I think Charlie wasn't capable of making a sensible answer and therefore couldn't have made the right one. Charlie's decision is only based off hopes and dreams. It's unfair and undignified that the doctors would have taken advantage of Charlie's disability just so they can do an experiment on him. Charlie is still a boy in his mind and for him to go through being dumb, than smart, than dumb again will put him over the edge.
Matthew Gafrick Putman Hour 5 15 November 2016 Argument Paper Ethics is the standard form of right and wrong, what others can or can't do. Ethics helps people to not commit bad deeds, and it helps them to live up to standards. In the book Flowers for Algernon two doctors need to make an ethical decision. It's on weather or not to preform an operation on an unintelligent man named Charlie Gordon. Charlie Gordons doctors did not act ethically when they preformed the surgery to make him smart; because they took advantage of his condition and failed to share the possible consequences to Charlie.
Ethics of Gattaca In recent discussions of the film Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, a controversial issue has been whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis which is diagnosing a persons diseases before they are born using their genetics is ethical. On the one hand, some argue that the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is unethical. From this perspective, to discard babies who's lives would be greatly effected and much harder than others due to diseases that could be diagnosed before birth is unethical. Humans should not be able to “play God” or in other words decide another human’s fate no matter what.
They make themselves feel better about it by thinking, “It's for science.” And that's what they let out to the world but little do people know there is other ways to find out the same exact information. Those ways do not include animals suffering. In total, Scientists should not animal test because it is inhumane and unethical, there is alternative ways to figure out the information, and it is more expensive.
He desperately wanted to be used for the experiment; furthermore, the doctors felt as if he was the ideal person to do it. Charlie lacked popularity and a family; therefore nobody would be emotionally affected if something were to go wrong. Both Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss performed the same operation on mice, outrageously expecting the duplicate results for the humanoid. If the surgery went as planned, society would no longer have the burden of the “Charlie Gordons” in the world, but the outcomes were neither expected nor
In a medical article, Baeyens informs doctors that parents and children need to become educated on the vaccination benefits because the tendency of unvaccinated individuals to be diagnosed with a preventable disease is high. The reason for people not getting vaccinated is the lack of communication between the public health and social workers about the benefits. Baeyens states that, “Many of the reasons... for not getting vaccinated are based upon ignorance of the true facts...or unfounded fears.” People are not getting vaccinated because they are not aware of the potential risks or benefits that they pose. Communication between these people and the health care services would provide information about immunization which could lead to more people accepting it.
This is a result of racism, which is essentially the only reason why the Lacks family were not given money for the use of their family member’s tissue. “...careless journalists and researchers who violated the family’s privacy by publishing everything from Henrietta 's medical records to the family’s genetic information,” (Skloot). Not only were the cells taken without Lacks’ permission, but the medical records of the family were published without the family’s consent. None of the publishers view this as a violation of privacy, most likely because the race of the family. “‘Scientists don’t like to think of HeLa cells as being little bits of Henrietta because it’s much easier to do science when you dissociate your materials from the people they come from,”’ (Skloot).
Among multiple issues including giving misleading information, the most dominate is the lack of consent Milgram received from his subjects to participate in such a test (102). While I do see that this is immoral, there is no way that Milgram could have completed his experiments effectively if he had done it morally. The first issue is if he explains what is actually going to happen during the experiments, that would obviously hurt the integrity of his results. Also, going back to how the experiments help us, if those who participated knew what was going to happen, it wouldn’t have affected them as severely. It was the shock that the experiment gave that brought their life choices into question.
Also, the uneducated public believes most results that are published; if a scientist hastily publishes results without full justifications people could actually believe or misinterpret the wrong idea/results. Furthermore, if a scientist assume that he/she has the accurate results and shares it with others without justifying their ideas and results; he/she could be attacked by others (for example, Watson and Crick case with Rosalind in the movie). Therefore I believe that scientists have the right to keep their results confidential until they fully explain and justify their reasoning, but no way under any circumstance should fully completed justified research be kept confidential because the
People against his research would say that he had no right to say these things because the people that he would single out in his articles were pioneers and were working before standards were set for human research (Rothman, 1991). This exactly states the problem as to what bioethicists and Beecher were trying to fix, which was the lack of thought and care for putting a human being through potential pain and torture without their knowledge and consent. Researchers will no longer be allowed to be the martyrs of thousands of innocent people in the name of unethical and non consensual scientific experimentation (Rothman,
The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks has raised ethical issues in the exploration of the origin of HeLa and also the struggles that her siblings faced. These cells are the basis for the discoveries of important scientific studies. If she had been in charge of the tissues that had been removed from her and had been declined them to be used in studies, none of these studies would have been possible. The novel raises many ethical issues and on how science is handled today. We should be able to control what happens to our tissues, the consequences, and benefits of donating tissues to science, should be something we have in thought in the day of age in healthcare and science.