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. Charlie said himself that he wanted to be like his best friends in his own life.
I said yes. Miss Kinnian told me. I dont care if it herts.” He clearly does not fully grasp the implications of the surgery. Charlie only understands the operation may hurt, missing other risks like surgical complications. Failing to understand what the surgery will do to his brain, he only knows it will make him “smart”.
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
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.
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.
But in Donald’s case it was the total opposite. He went to the hospital with his mind already made up to die, which goes against what the doctors have being taught to do, and the principle of beneficence. The doctors decided to reject his autonomy because they knew he had an immense possibility of having a happy live and not just simply acting in a paternalistic way. In the end the doctors decisions was the right choice, when Donald stated, “I am enjoying life now, and I’m glad to be alive” (Munson6). Which proves that the doctors knew what they were doing, even though his autonomy might have being rejected; at the end it turned out to be a greater benefit to Donald because he was able to live again as a normal man.
Some may discredit this point by stating that Charlie’s surgery would improve future scientific understanding. Nonetheless, the ethics behind this decision remain questionable. On the topic of treatment of human test subjects, the article “Ethics of Fieldwork” states, “Special care must be taken with people who are unable to understand or who are particularly susceptible to coercion.” These precautions were not exercised with Charlie, which many would believe to be
All Charlie knows is that If he does the operation that he can get more intelligent, and that's all Charlie’s ever wanted. 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.
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. Johnny is not a tragic hero because his “honorable” motives were not sincere. For example, Valdez states “He didn’t want to go and yet he did.
In John Steinbeck’s novella Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck uses a line from Robert Burns poem “To a Mouse” to portray the theme that the main characters failure is inevitable; the forces acting upon this are Lennie’s display of his growing disability, and that nobody believes they can do it, plus the men’s inability to stay in one place. First of all, Steinbeck uses Lennie’s growing disability as a force acting on the main characters inevitable failure. After taking away a dead mouse, George said, “that mouse ain’t fresh, Lennie; and besides you’ve broke it pettin’ it” (9). This is the first time we see that Lennie is capable of hurting small things down to killing them. He did proclaim that he didn’t kill the mouse but George told the readers that this isn’t the first