Should Charlie Gordons Doctors Act Ethically

One of the reasons the doctors were not ethical is they didn't tell him all of the risks and he didn't really understand what was going to happen after the operation. ''Miss Kinnian says maybe they can make me smart.''(Flowers for Algernon progress report 1 March 5 1965) ''Has the patient been informed of benefits and risks, understood

Ethics is an issue that is involved here. It is often argued that physician assisted may be a

Doctors were not telling their patients everything and would sugar coat things to make the donation or operation as less scary as posse so they will agree to it. One of the most famous person to get mistreated was Henrietta Lacks or HeLa. She died in her thirties in the mid-nineteenth century but the one thing she and her family had no idea was that scientists and doctors were growing her cells in a laboratory. Henrietta had no idea that her cells were growing in a dish in a laboratory somewhere and that her cells would help change the world by advancing medicine and science for the rest of anyone’s life.(Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.) But there are more than likely millions of cases that ended up like Henrietta but are not as talked about. Patient’s rights is a right that we can not take for granted and make sure people are not taking your tissue without your

samples. Permission for doctors to use anyone’s cells or body tissue at that time was

Throughout the history of medicine there has always been a need for shared commitment to ideals of moral, ethical and humane practice. The Hippocratic Oath, created by a compilation of works largely based on Hippocrates, has always stood as guidelines for the conduct of physicians. The Classical oath has and continues to serve well in preserving the sanctity of the medical profession while developing a basis for the respectful treatment of patients. However, this out-dated oath is not equipped to handle the modern trials and tribulations faced by physicians and health care in general. Many of its principles are simply unrealistic and inapplicable in today’s society. For this reason a revised version of the oath was written. As I will

Throughout our lives, we are plagued by the notion of ‘ethics’ or morals - the basis of our everyday behavior. The medical field is no exception, with doctors constantly reminded of the ethical duties they must carry out for each of their patients. An example of unethical doctors is demonstrated in Daniel Keyes’s short story, Flowers for Algernon. The story features Charlie Gordon, a man with an intellectual disability who strives to become smarter. He is a candidate for a new surgical procedure that is used to triple one’s intelligence which was directed by Dr. Strauss and Dr. Nemur. Although the procedure holds promise for helping a vast amount of people, Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss acted unethically by selecting Charlie to undergo the operation because they did not finish testing the procedure and because Charlie was unable to make a proper decision.

Eventually, Moore hired a lawyer, who discovered that Golde had used Moore’s Spleen to develop a valuable immortal cell line named Mo. Moore filed a lawsuit, claiming that his bodily tissues were his own property, and that Golde had stolen them. A series of rulings and appeals about his case launched an intense national debate. Golde won because he’s the one who made the cells valuable. He did all of the work. This situation relates to this debate because if the doctor’s would have had ownership over the tissues in the first place, none of this would not have happened. This also proves that the law is on the doctor’s side. If doctors had ownership of the tissues and the right to do whatever they wanted to them, they would not have to go through all this trouble.

Without the patient’s’ knowledge, doctors would use them for research and “many scientists believed that since patients were treated for free in the public wards, it was fair to use them as research subjects as a form of payment” (30). While Henrietta was being operated on, a doctor “picked up a sharp knife and shaved two dime-sized pieces of tissue from Henrietta's cervix: one from her tumor, and one from the healthy cervical tissue nearby. Then he placed the samples in a glass dish” (33). This sample would change the course of medical history and save thousands of lives. These doctors performed other tasks and felt no remorse for his patients. They would give no information to their patients and “repeated this process with about a dozen other cancer patients” (128). One doctor “told them he was testing their immune systems; he said nothing about injecting them with someone else's malignant cells”, and these innocent people had no idea what was being put in them (128). While the public started to question the morals of the doctors who were non-consensually performing tasks on their subjects, the doctors countered their remarks by asking "if the whole profession is doing it, how can you call it 'unprofessional conduct'?" (134). Unfortunately, there were consequences and repercussions of taking the cells of Henrietta and countless others. The Lacks

On my last note, privacy is very important to an individual. Having someone invade it makes anyone angry. What happened to Mrs. Lack’s and to her family is not ethical. Unfortunately, her family is still fighting for her to be recognized by society. Her contribution, had given so many people a second chance in life. What I am saying is that if doctors are smart enough to find cure to different diseases. I think they are smart enough to do the right thing. Unfortunately, this not always the

First of all, One of the ethical question a doctor has to ask is, "is the patient mentally capable and legally competent, and is there evidence of incapacity?" (Seigler). If one was to read what I've stated above one can tell that a 68 IQ is not mentally capable. Therefore both Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss (that were the neurosurgeons names) did not follow that rule.

A doctor takes an oath that he or she will do everything in their power to keep a patient alive. But they also take an oath that they will do whatever is in the best interest of their patient.

of nonmaleficence comes into play. This principle requires a doctor to avoid administering any harm to a patient, as far as possible. Once again, this principle forms one of the fundamental features of the Hippocratic Oath (Macklin 2003).

Frameworks are in place to guide doctors on how to treat their patients. Both the Hippocratic Oath that medical practitioners swear by before entering the medical profession and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) statement about patient’s right try to protect patients by giving these standards. One such basis is that doctors should strive to help patients as much as possible with the healing process. In the event that it is not possible to help, then the doctor should refrain from acts that may further harm the patient. This is shown in the Hippocratic Oath when it says, “[I swear] I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgement; I will keep them from harm and injustice.” The AMA also brings this to light, “The patient has the right to courtesy, respect, dignity, responsiveness, and timely attention to his or her needs.” These suggest the moral standard that should be taken for granted: a doctor’s role is, to the best of his or her ability, to help the patient get better and feel comfortable while treating the patient with consideration and respect.

The Hippocratic Oath puts forth a set of moral codes that require the doctor to put aside their potential desire for being the smartest person in the room or the most successful surgeon, but instead to focus on getting that one patient that is in front of them better, and nothing else. This can be seen easily through the first set of statements in the oath. In a modern version of the oath provided by pbs.org, it is clear to see these set of moral codes, “I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk,” “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required,” “I will not be ashamed to say ‘I know not,’ nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery” (Lecture Notes) These three examples alone show, clearly, that the doctor is supposed to put aside everything and do everything that they can to heal the patient. These set of moral codes fit in well with the codes that apply to the power of the patient that are seen in “Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship.”

Many opponents of these practices point to the Hippocratic Oath and its prohibition on hastening death. But those who turn to the oath in an effort to shape or legitimize their ethical viewpoints must realize that the statement has been embraced over approximately the past 200 years far more as a symbol of professional cohesion than for its content. Its pithy sentences cannot be used as all-encompassing maxims to avoid the personal responsibility inherent in the practice of medicine. Ultimately, a physician's conduct at the bedside is a matter of individual conscience.