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

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more