Charlie Gordon Flowers For Algernon Ethics

692 Words3 Pages

M McCready
Charlie Gordon, the narrator of "Flowers for Algernon," is a thirty-two year old man who has an I.Q. of only 68. He has a job as janitor at a factory and goes to night school to try to make himself smarter. Charlie has dire eagerness to learn, which is why he was picked as a test subject for an experimental surgery to enhance his intelligence. After he gets the surgery, Charlie keeps progress reports to see how much his intelligence actually increases. But were his doctors ethical in using Charlie as a test subject in the surgery? The definition of ethics are standards of what is right and wrong that are dependable and are supported with proof. With how the doctors acted, Charlie Gordon's doctors did not act ethically when they …show more content…

Doctors take an oath that sets the general expectation of a physician, and all physicians take it, so Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss took it. Which means they would have to abide by it and keep their promises as a doctor. The Hippocratic Oath says "I will remember that there is an art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug," (Lasagna). This means that as a doctor you would treat your patients medically, but also treating the patients emotions. The doctors treated Charlie with medical care, but did not take in to consideration Charlie's emotions. After Charlie gets smart, and then begins to deteriorate, he slips into a deep depression and his whole world turns upside-down. The two doctors didn't care about Charlie's emotions, and didn't do anything to help him, which would be breaking the Hippocratic Oath. Charlie's doctors did treat him medically, but failed to help his …show more content…

All doctors should ask themselves and the patient questions to see if the patient is a good fit for the medical care available. One of these important questions is, "Has the patient been informed of the benefits and risks, understood this information, and given consent?" (Siegler). Charlie was informed about the benefit of the operation, but didn't fully understand what was going to happen in the operation. He did give his consent based on the information he was given, but Charlie didn't give his full consent because he didn't understand the information. When the doctors were explaining the operation, they never said anything about the risks they just said what the benefits were. The doctors only told Charlie about the benefits, but they said nothing about the risks, and they didn't receive his full consent because Charlie didn't understand the information.
The operation did achieve it's goal of making Charlie smarter. One of the questions that doctors should ask is, "What are the goals of the treatment?" (Siegler). The doctors did know the goals of the surgery and they actually achieve it. Charlie was a genius for a little bit, but the surgery did complete its goal of making a person who is not smart, a genius. Overall, the surgery did complete its one goal of turning a not smart person into a

Open Document