Why Is Charlie Gordon Unethical

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel keys is a story about this incent character named Charlie garden who decided to take a chance to increases his intelligent. As he takes this chance and goes on this long journey to beacon "smart" he then starts learning more about life and starts to see people’s true colors. This operation changes Charlie and it changes him for the better.it was a big chance Charlie took and it was a good choice that he made to get the operation.

“ I want to be smart and I’ll try real hard”. This is Charlie Grodman he is the main character I will be talking about today. He is from the book “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes. I will tell you why he should of had the operation. I think that it was substantial for him to get a taste of being normal.

Would it be worse to have an IQ of 204 or 68? Would it be worse to know everything but not be able to talk with anyone without frustration or know nothing but not be able to talk of anything more complex than third grade level? In the short science fiction story, “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes, Charlie Gordon with an IQ of 68 and has a difficult time learning anything as simple as reading or writing is given the option to triple his intelligence with a suspicious surgery. Charlie, ignorant of the suspicion or risk that comes with this surgery is desperate to become intelligent as it is his only wish and nothing is more important to him. His teacher, Miss Kinnian recommend him for the surgery out of anyone in the class due to his egre and positive outlook on intelligence. However, after the surgery, Charlie finds intelligence was a nice treat but was far from an importance in life and only took him away from what truly mattered. One could believe Charlie was wrong to undergo the surgery because of the side effects that came with the surgery such as physical and emotional instability, and amnesia, the depresion it came with, and how he lost all of his friends and loved ones with his extreme intelligence.

Charlie did not even benefit that well from being a test subject in the experiment. Similarly, the treatment of Charlie was not very ethical because he was not treated specially for his mental state of disability. Lastly, this surgery did not provide enough benefits to even dent the weight of his unethical death. In the story Charlie was used because of his inferior intelligence and not treated well enough as he should have which led to his wrongful death. This story was fictional, but the use and abuse of human test subjects is

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. They certainly made a prediction about the effects the surgery would have on Charlie. The doctors very clearly had their own feelings about going through with this surgery. As for the next question, the doctors probably thought if Charlie died during this situation, it was a life devoted to science and not a life

Namur and Dr. Strauss used Charlie as a human experiment without him even knowing. Charlie wanted the doctors to use him for the operation so he could feel what it felt to be smart; he thought he would become normal. This was a perfect target for the doctors to use Charlie since there was no one in the society who took care of Charlie and loved him. Lastly, Algernon was not the only lab mouse to be tested on and die, so there were maybe hundreds of them. This meant that Charlie could expect to be like one of the mice. After all, Charlie was used as an experimental humanoid and did not know the risks of it. He soon became intelligent enough to do

In “Flowers for Algernon,” Daniel Keyes wrote that Charlie Gordon has an IQ of 68, and is in Mrs. Kinnian’s night class for slow adults. Charlie may be dumb, but he was so happy before the surgery and he had a job and “friends.” The reason that Charlie Gordon was better off before the surgery is because he had the motivation to become smart, and after the surgery he becomes depressed and realizes that the world plus the people in it are cruel.

The scientists were not ethical while preparing and performing Charlies surgery in many ways. They had not thought about how Charlie's life would change when his intelligence would be increased, and also how his life would be after his intelligence rapidly decreased back to normal. According to Medical Ethics, the patient must be fully informed with all available information.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like making yourself smarter and/or increase your ability to learn? In the story “Flowers for Algernon”, a 37 year old man named Charlie Gordon wasn’t the smartest person in the world but, he was able to function and maintain a job. Charlie had an I.Q. of 68 before being approached by Dr.Nemur and Dr.Strauss. They wanted him undergo a surgery that would triple his I.Q. Charlie had the surgery and became, at one point, the smartest man in the world with an I.Q. approaching 210. After this he began to lose the intelligence, knowledge, and emotions he just recently gained. This begs the question, should Charlie have had the surgery. Charlie, in most minds, was right for having the surgery, it not only gave him genius level intelligence, but allowed him to make great leaps in science and technology.

Flowers for Algernon is a thought provoking short story by Daniel Keyes about a 36 year old man, Charlie Gordon, who had of an unusually low IQ of 68, that left his mind trapped in one similar to a 5 year olds. This lead his life through a rollercoaster of struggles he was desperate to change. He had been offered a surgery that was said to triple his IQ, and give him the “normal” life he always dreamed of. This being said, because this procedure had never been tested on anyone but a mouse, Algernon, the side effect were unknown not to mention unpredictable. After the surgery was performed Charlie went through a period of time with no change, and then within a few days his intelligence immediately skyrocketed, making him so smart his journal entry began to be difficult to understand from all of sophistication in word choice. This all came to an end quickly as his mind soon began to deteriorate as fast as it had grown. Charlie was better off after the surgery and made the right decision by having it done because it gave him insight

There is a lot of evidence that Charlie will die. This is shown because Algernon went through the same side effects and died. Charlie also understands this and he writes ’Everyone identifies me with Algernon in a way we’re both the first of our kind.’ This shows that because of the relation towards the surgery they will come out with the same result and that means that Charlie will also die. During the end of the story, Charlie understands that he will most likely die from the surgery also because he has been through the same side effects and surgery as Algernon, he died and this shows that Charlie will do the same Charlie explains that ’ guess the same thing is or will soon be happening to me’ this proves that he will die because Charlie is smart enough to know what will be happening to himself because his IQ is about 200 and he is very smart so his prediction must be correct. 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

Every second of everyday people go through surgeries which sometimes end up in unpredicted symptoms.”Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes is about a 37 year old man, named Charlie Gordon who has a mental disability. When taking a part of an operation/experiment to gradually escalate. Before Charlie had the IQ of 68 but with help of the surgery, he gains the capacity to see the world how it really is. Charlie was better off when he took the surgery because he now has the knowledge to see how people are when it comes to somebody who is different that they are. Also, he gains visual intelligence when finally seeing a image on a card. But after the surgery he becomes depressed because the surgery was not the dramatic break of a man becoming a genius with a surgery. He pushes everyone away he loved due to the operation being a failure.

Charlie’s mindset of normalcy was to become intellectual; Charlie would bound at the first possible second to acquire his dream. Once Charlie was introduced to an experimental operation, Charlie craved the idea of being the test subject. Little to his knowledge, Charlie would be the first human trial with the operation. The desired after effect of both the doctors- apex opportunists- and Charlie was to increase the intelligence of a disabled man. The doctors exploited Charlie’s optimistic state, which shielded him from the dangers of the experiment. Once the operation was completed, Charlie was tested by racing a mouse, Algernon, through a maze- a simple one at that- to show just how inadequate Charlie was. Algernon was give the same operation as Charlie; nevertheless, Charlie was still compared to an inferior species to mankind. The initial “success” of the experiment superseded all of the scientists’ predictions- Charlie was ecstatic with his newly acquired intelligence. Charlie was lied to about how society would benefit from the surgery; the truth though, was that society would not know the achievements that Charlie Gordon created. Charlie may have become a human sacrifice as a result of the surgery; he would die as alone as when he was retarded. Charlie was too advanced for the geniuses around him, forcing him to become an even greater outcast than before the surgery. Charlie was able to see the failure of the experiment as a result of being an

She was not aware of that consequence and would not have proceeded with the treatment had she had known. Another ethical issue that was brought to my attention was the detail that the sample of Henrietta’s tumor was unknowingly taken and sent to a lab. The two ethical issues contradict with informed consent standards. For informed consent to be valid it must be, knowingly, voluntarily and competently give. In the first issue, it was standard at Hopkins for individuals to be told about fertilely loss, but that was not the case for Henrietta. With only a middle school education, Henrietta might not have understood what the doctors were explaining to her, if they even attempted to. Knowing what all the risks could have been almost impossible for her to understand. Knowing and competency were breached in this case. In the second issue, Henrietta did print her name on a form which stated consent for any procedures to be taken place. In my opinion, that is a very general statement; who really knows what that implies? Regardless of that consent, Henrietta was still unaware of the sample taken before and after the treatment. The doctor should have clearly explained all procedures that were going to take place during that appointment. Henrietta’s inability to understand due to her lack of education and poor explanations from the employees at

There are many reasons why a patient should be in control of their bodies , including the fact that they will be able to control what happens to them and be fully aware of the doctor’s intentions. For example in text 1 ( The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot ) it can be shown what could happen to you if you are not aware of what the doctors are doing to you . In the text it describes a story of a woman who got her cells basically stolen and later revealed to be immortal because of their self regenerative abilities . Not only are these cells still being used today but her family has gotten no type of pay or contribution for it . This shows exactly how doctors can behave and how it doesn’t hurt to be more aware of their actions . This also comes back to consent, because if Henrietta Lacks had given consent and understood exactly what she was giving consent for there would be no book written about her . Henrietta Lacks would have still died but at least the life changing trait she had that the