Argumentative Essay: Daniel Keyes Flowers For Algernon

As his intelligence degenerates, Charlie records, “Deterioration progressing. I have become absent-minded. Algernon died two days ago” (Keyes 205). This event is a foreshadowing of Charlie’s presumed death, as they received the same operation, and therefore should have the same symptoms. Once his intelligence finishes diminishing, Charlie writes his final progress report, saying “I dont want Miss Kinnian to feel sorry for me.

Although these controversial statements with the doctor's unethical treatment of the patients in Flowers for Algernon, I believe that the doctors did the right thing with the patient and acted in the well-being of the patient. Charlie Gordon's doctors acted ethically when they performed the surgery to make him smarter. In real life doctor's have to make these same decisions today. They should always make the ethical decision of caring for their patient and being their friend just like Dr. Strauss and Dr.

To conclude Charlie will die from the surgery and it was not right to risk his life like this. Also, Charlie chose to have the operation when he was not very smart which makes the situation worse because he should not have had the choice because he did not have enough knowledge to

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.

Even though now years past Vonnegut still is not a big fan of medicine. “What I really hate about medication is that it helps me, which means I’m not nearly as perfect as I wish I were.” He was hoping to heal his illness by will power, but after a while he realized it’s impossible and he needs medicine. He understood that doesn’t matter how strong you are or how much you are trying to get better, in some situations without medicine it’s impossible to get better. So he put his guard away and stared to take his medicines and started to get

Charlie's doctors did not ask any of these questions, and it resulted in a negative life for Charlie afterwards. Although it was unexpected, he was fired from his job because of his intelligence. His doctors did not take this into consideration, therefore neither of them acted ethically in this situation. One might argue that Dr. Neymar and Dr. Straus did make ethical decisions in their experimental surgery. Charlie was eager and motivated to do this surgery.

He’s already dead in Doug’s eyes. What people experience in childhood affects them into adulthood. Firstly, Doug randomly woke up on his 48th birthday and decided he had to kill Ralph. Doug lying next to his wife with children of his own sleeping in the other room woke up and decided that he “will arise and go now and kill Ralph Underhill”

This is an important issue because by trying multiple techniques to get Vivian’s heart pumping again, such as CPR and electric shock paddles, he violates the ethical principle of autonomy. He refuses to respect what the patient has decided is best for her mind, body, and soul and instead steals her right to that decision away from her. It is clear that this was a deliberate act because Susie exclaims that the order was put in a day before and he even looked at it himself (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). He was not lazy and forgot to check her chart, he knew the order was there and made a methodical choice not to abide by it. His motivation to revive her is to keep her alive because she aids his research.

They were mainly doing the surgery for their own benefit. In the story "Flowers for Algernon," Charlie overhears the doctors talking about the release date for the surgery results. This tells readers that the doctors did not care what happened to Charlie; all they cared about was getting the title of being the first doctors to be successful in a surgery like this. They also cared more about seeing the effects of the surgery on a human so they could use it for their own benefit. Therefore, the doctors surely could not be ethical if all they cared about were themselves.

Father states “He won’t amount to anything anyway. It’s better if he starts working with me now so that he can help the family. ”(Valdez 631) Although Father state this about the younger brother, but it is also implying that this has happened to Johnny already . In conclusion, he would have amounted to nothing whether it be the military or life; he would have not been a tragic hero.

But unfortunately, the experiment was also never clearly explained to them, they had thought it was just the best possible treatment expected to cure the sickness they might have had. Many unethical practices were evident in this study, in this case, the most important one was informed consent, which is a consent given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits. None of the participants in the Tuskegee study

Their poor values have caused extensive damage to Donald, the plaintiff. Finally the last key element in the process of ethical decision-making is How. The defendants needed to ask themselves why they did not let the public know the new chemical was not FDA approved. The three men and Novelty Now did not ask themselves what would happen if everybody followed their guidelines. If they had asked themselves these questions they would have realized they were making unethical decisions.

The result was a successful operation but Lazeroff died while recovering (Gawande P.87). Lazeroff thought he was making the right decision but it want bad. The doctor knew the result of the surgery in Lazeroff’s condidtion and he knew that Lazeroff was at risk of dying. Therefore, he should have disagreed with the patient’s decision or refused to do the surgery to avoid such a thing from

John Henry Giles signed the DNR under the false belief that he was suffering from a condition called ALS which was diagnosed by Dr.Hamilton and agreed upon by Dr.Forman. It is understandable why he would not want to be resuscitated in the event that something would happen due to the miserable conditions and suffering that he would have faced as a result of the progression of this condition. The only problem was that Dr.House was the only one that disagreed with the ALS diagnosis but his argument was uncertain and unsupported. Due to the lack of testing requested by the patient and the undetermined cause of his illness the doctors that were assigned his case had to take a chance and prescribe John medications that they believed would help his

One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.