Flowers for Algernon
discussion
Should Charlie have "stayed the way that God made him?"
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, Charlie should have stayed the way God made him. That's not a religious comment on my part, I'm not religious, just using your language but I thought what was done to Charlie was inherently cruel.
I’m not sure why you worry about “stay the way god intended” advocates. It’s their beliefs, doesn’t have to infringe on your beliefs. No one is forcing you to believe the way they do. If you both had a chance to choose in a similar situation to Charlies’s, they simply wouldn’t choose that path and you probably would. Their beliefs only effects their lifestyle, it does not have to infringe on yours. Your whole post just seems really angry. If they can find peace while still living with great disability, than I admire that strength. I would also admire people who are brave to risk dangerous operations and risking a much worse fate than they already have.
Where do you draw the line? And how far do you push it? It’s all subjective and a grey area where that line is.
I guess it only really matters if it’s a life or death situation or cases dealing with cruelty. Do you respect their beliefs or go with yours? Is the person you’re going to save be grateful for interfering with their beliefs? We have to ask ourselves, would taking this next step truly make us happier?
What happened to Charlie was both a blessing and a curse. I can see why he would have been happier if he was left alone. I can also see why he wanted more too.
I think Charlie was too old to have the injection (I think it was an injection, it's been a while since I read this book). He should have been left alone, the transition was too hard, too cruel. A kid though, if the medicine was working perfectly, would be able to adapt far more easily, a kid wouldn’t have enough memories or experiences to break them.
Nuran wrote: "...Their beliefs only effects their lifestyle, it does not have to infringe on yours...."AH, if only that WERE true. We humans continually infringe on the freedoms and beliefs of others based on what the majority, (or the most vocal minority, or simply those in power) believe.
A few examples... the Inquisition, Prohibition, abortion law, anti-miscegenation laws... I could go on.
As to the tenor of my initial post... ( Your whole post just seems really angry.) Other than the word worry, I don't see anything emotional in the post at all, just questions. Perhaps if there's any perceived anger in this discussion, you tracked it in with you?
I just think that this book is a good opportunity to discuss medical ethics and how they relate to beliefs. I'm certain that there might be something of value that can be said about physician assisted termination in relation to this as well. However I might be over sensitized to these types of discussions at the moment. I recently finished reading Frankenstein Now there's a case of hubris & blaming one's creator run amok.
Well, I think the wording is problematic to begin with, as it invites the question "Why would this God do that, why would He make him that way?"And there can be no satisfactory answer to _that_ question.
As for medical ethics, gender reassignment surgery springs most prominently to mind, which didn't even necessitate some fancy religion for people to believe that what they were/are doing is "right".
Bottom line is that without having the participants consent, your actions will always be at very least ethically questionable.
As a follow up to my earlier question...Brits today are talking about a controversial new 3 party IVF procedure that will allow women with generally fatal "mitochondrial diseases" to have children. The procedure involves transplanting the couple's fertilized egg into a healthy unfertilized third party egg that has healthy DNA. The resulting baby should not only be free of the disease but unlikely to pass it on to their kids.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-2309...
Medical ethicists are up in arms over this as "one step further" along that slippery slope to designer babies and genetic engineering.
What do you all think?
Perhaps this discussion would be more appropriate linked to the book My Sister's Keeper as the main character in that tale was conceived so as to be available to save her older sister's life.
From the description of the procedure I fail to readily see what should be wrong with that.
I agree with you but some think that since the resulting child would have the DNA of three people, albeit some of it mitochondrial DNA, it's an "abomination."
Makes you wonder what those peoples ethical standards are, if the only alternative I can see in this scenario would be to have the child knowing that theres a high percentage for it to inherit a fatal disease - or do they expect the couple to say, "Well, gee, we could have a child now without risk but we'd rather not because it wouldn't be 'the natural way'".The thing, is I don't necessarily disagree with the fear that society will possibly start to pressure women into producing "perfect" babies - cosmetic surgery shows that if there's money to be made any and all ethics will eventually get abandoned - but the problem is one of societies mindset.
This will only become a slippery slope if the collective we turn it into one.
I'm going to sneak up on this argument.A number of procedures, like repairs of cleft palates or of congenital heart defects, are performed on patients who cannot consent. Any person who is arguing against these treatments on religious grounds -- "it's violating God's will" -- has an argument that is simultaneously invincible and immoral ("yep, let the kid die; it's Gods's will"). Charlie, being intellectually disabled, could consent, but he could not make an informed consent. In this regard, one could argue that his treatment was unethical, but to do so consistently,you would also have to argue that essentially all medical treatment of children and adolescents was unethical. While ID is not equivalent to being a child or an adolescent, it is, at least commonly, considered as preventing a person from being considered a fully-functioning adult.
So, we've got three groups of people from which informed consent is not required for medical treatment: infants, children, and adolescents. There is a fourth, the elderly, upon whom it is quite common to impose extremely expensive and painful treatment without their consent (one example: CPR is part of the procedure when a code is called in a hospital; this will frequently break an 80-year old's ribs). So, we have four groups the members of which are routinely subject to medical treatment without their consent. Based on this, it is logically inconsistent to exclude Charlie from medical treatment because he cannot provide consent.
Another factor is, of course, is that this is an experimental protocol, which would mean that Charlie is an experimental subject. Again, it is inconsistent to place Charlie in a different category than the many infants, children, and adolescents who are subject to experimental medical procedures.
Swampyankee wrote: "I'm going to sneak up on this argument.A number of procedures, like repairs of cleft palates or of congenital heart defects, are performed on patients who cannot consent. Any person who is argui..."
Swampyankee wrote: "I'm going to sneak up on this argument.
A number of procedures, like repairs of cleft palates or of congenital heart defects, are performed on patients who cannot consent. Any person who is argui..."
Stephen wrote: "That comment has come up in other threads about this book. I am worried about the "stay the way that God made him" advocates. Just where does one draw the line?
Does that philosophy apply to repa..."
Omfg, of COURSE this would have been completely unethical for scientists to perform in real life! And one would never blame Charlie, because the way he was at birth made him incapable of providing informed consent.
That said, this is one of my favorite stories for making people think about medical ethics.
Certainly, the treatment given to Charlie was an experimental procedure, and he was given it without his informed consent. As I said earlier, this is something that is done, albeit not routinely: children and adolescents are given experimental treatments, and nobody would argue that Charlie is less capable of providing informed consent than a child.Luckily, I'm not a medical ethicist, and even more luckily, I'm not a parent who has ever had a need to decide whether one of my children needed an experimental medical treatment. I've not read Flowers For Algernon for a long time (as an aside, I thought the movie Charlie was good).
As an aside, I'm very unsure whether Charlie's treatment was ethical; if it is so judged, that judgement is, in my opinion, inconsistent with similar judgements made in regard to many real-life treatments given to infants, children, adolescents, and the elderly.
Certainly, the treatment given to Charlie was an experimental procedure, and he was given it without his informed consent. As I said earlier, this is something that is done, albeit not routinely: children and adolescents are given experimental treatments, and nobody would argue that Charlie is less capable of providing informed consent than a child.Luckily, I'm not a medical ethicist, and even more luckily, I'm not a parent who has ever had a need to decide whether one of my children needed an experimental medical treatment. I've not read Flowers For Algernon for a long time (as an aside, I thought the movie Charlie was good).
As an aside, I'm very unsure whether Charlie's treatment was ethical; if it is judged as unethical, that judgement is, in my opinion, inconsistent with similar judgements made in regard to many real-life treatments given to infants, children, adolescents, and the elderly.
I would say no. Nothing ventured nothing gained; such is the world of science. Even Though the experiment failed a very important lesson was revealed to me; that knowledge is truly power and one must be emotionally prepared to handle such power. I think that Charlie's emotional development along with his cognitive development was ignored.
If one so chooses to believe in God, and does it with true intelligent understanding of what Gods represents, then any alteration by man is still done by one of God's creations and therefore is represented as an act of God himself. For God is in everything. However, I am not a believer of organized religion, but I do have faith.
Sam wrote: "If one so chooses to believe in God, and does it with true intelligent understanding of what Gods represents, then any alteration by man is still done by one of God's creations and therefore is rep..."Indeed!
Kc wrote: "I would say no. Nothing ventured nothing gained; such is the world of science. Even Though the experiment failed a very important lesson was revealed to me; that knowledge is truly power and one mu..."I too agree in terms of his emotional intelligence being overlooked as a positive and immeasurable effect. Nice point.
Sam wrote: "Kc wrote: "I would say no. Nothing ventured nothing gained; such is the world of science. Even Though the experiment failed a very important lesson was revealed to me; that knowledge is truly power..."thanks
Yes; I made this point in my review of the book. He gave up being a likable, mentally challenged young man to being a jerk. But you know what? I did enjoy seeing him reconnect with his past. I loved the flashback sequences and the reason behind his desire to be like everybody else. "Even a feeble-minded man wants to be like other men."
Foe some reason, I am uncomfortable with the word "should". Most advances in medicine have involved some risk. For me, a more pertinent question is: was he treated ethically? An even more important question may be: was he treated as a person? My issues isn't so much with the procedure as much as it is with the people in Charlie's life. Charlie's parents didn't nurture him, his coworker at the bakery bullied him and Dr. Nemur really didn't see Charlie as a true human being, either before or after the procedure. It seems that following the surgery, Charlie was starting to develop, albeit slowly and tentatively, the emotional skills that most normal, well-adjusted adults take for granted. Once Charlie regressed, the most important question may be: was Charlie better or worse off than he was before the operation?>
This is quite a deep discussion for the book!I think that perhaps " a moment in the sunlight" for Charlie was the pinnacle of a life held back. If someone offered you a miracle cure but said that you would be dead in a year maybe you would take it as you would live your life to the full.
I have enjoyed reading others posts on this subject. I can't help but think that cancer is a lot like the subject matter of the post Laura created. "If someone offered you a miracle cure but said that you would be dead in a year maybe you would take it as you would live your life to the full." Some questions that come to my mind are: When is someone a fully-functioning adult? When can others impose decisions upon a perceived adult? Why should we worry about it if someone wants to live and then die with their decisions? My answer: Only when the law is broken to ethically, emotionally, and physically harm someone.
Whose "GOD" made him that way ? NO. Of course not.
How did God make him? Naked and illiterate? Should he not wear clothes because that is not 'how God made him'? This is not a great question for discussion.
Justin wrote: "...This is not a great question for discussion."Posts 21 and 22 seem to think differently. Personally, I think that any discussion centered on a book is worthwhile if the participants are honest and trying to exchange meaningful, thoughtful ideas.
One of my biggest problems with GoodReads is the sheer volume of inane chatter that makes its way into the discussion threads.
I'm a man of strong opinions and actually like it when others make an argument that I'd not fully considered before... and if they actually manage to change my viewpoint (or widen it a bit) that's all to the good.
In America where religious intolerance is on the rise (ironically since 9/11 when the country was attacked by an incredibly intolerant group) I think that discussions about what role one's belief's should have on society are germane and worthwhile.
Posts 21 and 22 seem to think differently. Personally, I think that any discussion centered on a book is worthwhile if the participa..."My point is that the question of fixing Charlie's handicap has already left the topic of 'how god made him' behind. For example, Charlie lives in a house. Since God made man, if he made them at all, living in a pre technological state, staying as "god made him" would first require Charlie to move out into the wilderness and stop wearing clothes. Next he would have to avoid ever showering or getting a haircut, and of course all of medicine is out. To stay as "God made him", his parents would have had to avoid teaching him how to use language or tools.
"How God made Charlie" is just a totally wrong question to ask about this book.
Maybe you should ask what kind of "God" would make a Charlie? If we're supposed to be made in God's image, what does that say for your "God?" How about the "God" who made Hitler? Was he made in God's image too?
I think it was cruel because it didn't work out in the end, but if the experiment was a success---everyone would be cool with it. Or at least almost everyone. I think its important to remember that Charlie agreed with the experiment. As to whether he was fit to make that decision, and the consequences it entailed---that is another question.
Informed consent - Charlie did not have that. "As God made him" is perhaps an unfortunate metaphor. Perhaps a better question would be, "should the procedure have been performed on Charlie?"
No, I think Charlie was better for the experience, I think he acknowledged that in his decline. He wouldn't let anyone touch or move the torn books, the broken records, the evidence of what he had been - even as he lost that version of himself. Those artifacts, like his journal, were a testament to what he had accomplished and experienced and he would not allow them to be removed from his sight, even though they caused him great pain and misery.
I think it was up to Charlie. Charlie seemed excited that he was getting 'smarter' He felt confident and happy with himself.
If God made humanity, then God made us with minds and hands. He must have thought we needed them for something.Charley's experience is an epicurean tragedy. His pursuit of what he thinks will make him happy leads him to sacrifice his true happiness. We sympathize with his loss and curse the doctors whom we see as to blame.
But is happiness really the best way to measure the value of these events? Was Charley a sad puppet of misled medicos or a failed ubermensch?
What makes Charlie's case unique is that the change that occured to him was a very profound, visceral change particularly when compared with the other examples. That in itself isn't bad. It was the fallout of the change, one that even with Algernon, no one could have known was coming. Ergo, Charlie couldn't have known what he was choosing.
Charlie did not have informed consent. A deeper question presented by the novel is: how do any of us spend the limited time we have?
I think we may be conflating informed consent with agency.If you think about it most of the decisions we make are made without fully understanding all of the consequences. We assume that our ability to make those decisions is still valid, because we have enough control over our faculties to be responsible for our actions. Hence agency.
Informed consent is a cut-and- dried thing and Charlie did not have it.
Paul wrote: "Informed consent is a cut-and- dried thing and Charlie did not have it."How are you defining "informed consent"?
A patient is informed of the potential risks and benefits of a medical procure and willingly gives his/her consent. If I recall correctly, Charlie's sister consented to Charlie receiving the procedure. If an individual has mild or even moderate mental retardation, he/she would still probably have the capacity to make an informed decision. Charlie's rights were likely violated by his sister and the medical team performing the procedure.
I don't think it really matters in the end because Charlie went full circle and ended up right where he started. He also left a broken heart along the way. As for the informed consent, two things: it is much different then than it is today. Today Charlie would have a guardian to protect him and still give informed consent for him. Back then doctors were GOD and could do much more then now with human experimentation. If Charlie did not like what happened to him, he could have sued after the fact and he didn't.
You can ask the very same question with the Awakenings. Nobody complained when they woke and they couldn't give consent either.
Good question, tough answers.
The way the Catholic Church frames similar questions is to draw a distinction between restoration of normal human functioning versus enhancement of functioning. The restoration of normal functioning is something we should strive for, versus accepting people in their "natural" state.Once you have that principle, though, the devil comes in how you define "normal". There has been some backlash, for example, in the Deaf and autistic communities against defining their traits as something that needs to be cured.
In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie was able to function on a reasonable level but really wasn't able to understand his life before he had the treatment. He was also dependent on his friend at the bakery to keep him employed, and really was not capable of living independently. So in my opinion his sister was correct to allow the scientists to try to help him.
In real life people like Charlie have already been cured. He had PKU and it is now known that typical cognitive functioning can be maintained by placing affected infants on a special diet from birth and for the rest of their lives. That is why every infant born in America is tested for PKU. I have not heard of PKU patients or their parents rebelling against their diets so that the person would become cognitively impaired "as God intended." Most people would find that absurd.
So, implicitly, I think this questions has already been answered.
I believe it's a blessing that people nowadays have the opportunity to utilize contemporary techniques to at least live a normal life. Who is not shunned out of society due to a lack of normal function. Charlie’s story is different, he surpasses what normal is considered. And yet, it did not matter how smart he became as he wasn't able to prevent the inevitable.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
My Sister's Keeper (other topics)
Frankenstein (other topics)
Flowers for Algernon (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Awakenings (other topics)My Sister's Keeper (other topics)
Frankenstein (other topics)
Flowers for Algernon (other topics)
Does that philosophy apply to repairing cleft palates as well?
How about circumcision?
How about cutting one's beard?
How about going to a doctor when one's appendix bursts?
There ARE religious sects that advocate and others that condemn or disapprove and many of these. Where does one draw the line?