Skip to main content

Should Charlie Gordon have gotten the operation?

This is a difficult question, and one I think only Charlie could really answer. As readers, we can make judgments about the pros and cons of Charlie's surgery, but in the end we don't get to decide whether he was better off for having it. Let's consider some of the pros and cons of Charlie's surgery and discuss whether he was better off with it.


Pros:


  • Charlie's IQ improved and he was able to perform better in his skill tests

  • Charlie helped the doctors to understand how this surgery affected human subjects

  • Charlie developed new relationships

Cons:


  • The effects of Charlie's surgery eventually wore off, causing him lots of anxiety

  • Charlie became aware of how people he thought were his friends were actually quite mean to him

  • Charlie might eventually die from the surgery, like Algernon

  • Because Charlie had low intellectual function to begin with, he may not have fully understood the implications of his surgery and have been coerced into deciding to have the operation

In order to decide whether or not Charlie should have had the surgery, we need understand Charlie's values. Which did Charlie value more- being smart or being happy? I think that more than anything, Charlie valued being helpful to others. At the end of the story, Charlie writes that we should not be sad for him and the fact that the effects of the surgery wore off. He writes that we should be happy for him as being someone who was able to benefit the scientific community and the world. I think that if Charlie feels it was right for him to go through the operation because he played a vital role in benefiting others who might later have similar surgeries or treatments.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more