# data[].attributes.body
When conducting an investigation that involves human psychological research, ethics is an extremely relevant issue at hand. Due to the experimental nature of an investigation, outcomes are not guaranteed to be positive and throughout history there have been many examples of investigations such as Project MK Ultra that have left participants with long and short term psychological, mental and emotional damage. Ethical guidelines such as confidentiality, voluntary participation and withdrawal, informed consent and debriefing are those that must be implemented to ensure minimal harm to participant or participants. However, in some studies, researchers propose to follow these guidelines, however do not. In Charlie’s case it is unclear whether confidentiality is upheld. In terms of voluntary participation and withdrawal, Charlie did not participate entirely voluntarily as Alice Kinnian was asked to recommend a student from her school. Charlie may have felt pressured to agree due to his romantic interest in Alice Kinnian and his strong desire to impress her. Charlie was placed under general anaesthetic when undergoing his operation, he was also strapped to the operating table. Of course, these procedures may be justified as required for success of the operation, however this means that Charlie was stripped of his right to withdraw, in addition he was not informed of this right. In terms of informed consent, Charlie was not truly informed of the details of the investigation prior to his family consenting to his participation and he was unaware of the amount of time it might take for him to grow in intellect as well as possible repercussions of his participation. The fact that his family was chosen to give consent may be deemed unethical as his family had no concern for his welfare, this is evident in him being abandoned at a young age. Much evidence of debriefing is not present either. Therefore in this situation, it is likely that in the presence of an ethics committee, the investigation may not have been allowed to go ahead without changes due to the large of amount harm likely to be caused to the participant. Finally, another ethical issue that may arise is whether it is ethical for experiments of such a nature should be allowed to take place. Many may argue that in such a situation, the researcher is playing God’s role and that this is unethical. 

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the 'treatment?

I believe that Charlie was deeply affected by having the treatment in ways that are irreversible. It was almost a rude awakening for him as he was finally able to open his eyes to the atrocities that had been happening to him a daily basis on the part of others. Quotes such as “I wish I never had the experiment because now I know how people make fun of me." (Keyes 192), show the deep despair that Charlie was feeling after he had realised how others were treating him. In several other occasions, Charlie’s false sense of hope was shattered through his realisation that being of extremely high intellect is just as limiting as being of extremely low intellect. He also begins to realise that others will criticise him no matter what he may change about himself this leaves him a deep state of self-conflict. His inability to act on his romantic interest for Alice Kinnian also leaves Charlie severely hopeless. This leaves the reader with the view that intellect, without emotion has no direction and it is emotion that Charlie lacked despite gaining intellect, therefore he remained just as worse off after having the treatment as before.
  

# data[].attributes.body
One of the major issues that scientists have to confront before any kind of experimentation, especially psychological experimentation, is does the potential gain outweigh the potential danger. There is also the issue of respect for those undergoing the experiment. The people in the book disrespect Charlie in the same way as they disrespect Algernon, they are both treated as lab rats. Pain or helplessness is made worse by being conscious of it and Charlie’s newfound intelligence allows him to see the world around him in greater detail and to see his place in that world. Experiencing physical pain is one thing but mental anguish requires understanding. There is an issue here about what it is to be sentient; there is a relationship between intelligence and sentience, but how intelligent do you need to be to be conscious of your surroundings and how conscious of your surroundings do you need to be before it is unethical to harm you for the potential benefit of others? 

# data[].attributes.body
One of the major issues that scientists have to confront before any kind of experimentation, especially psychological experimentation, is does the potential gain outweigh the potential danger. There is also the issue of respect for those undergoing the experiment. The people in the book disrespect Charlie in the same way as they disrespect Algernon, they are both treated as lab rats. Pain or helplessness is made worse by being conscious of it and Charlie’s newfound intelligence allows him to see the world around him in greater detail and to see his place in that world. Experiencing physical pain is one thing but mental anguish requires understanding. There is an issue here about what it is to be sentient; there is a relationship between intelligence and sentience, but how intelligent do you need to be to be conscious of your surroundings and how conscious of your surroundings do you need to be before it is unethical to harm you for the potential benefit of others? 

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that there is any way that Charlie's life was improved after having the treatment. In this case, ignorance was definitey bliss. He had to come to the realisation that his friends made fun of him, and he was forced to recognise past behaviour and other's. He is given a chance to experience his life as it would have been if he didn't have intellectual limitations. However, he still doesn't receive any support throughout it, which is something he desired even before he got the treatment. The increase in intelligence also made him aware when it began to disappear, when he began to spiral into depression. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Ajaay-What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ajaay-What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?

# data[].attributes.body
Human psychological experimentation is a debatable issue and the ethics behind it is an extremely important issue that has to be taken into consideration. Outcomes of an experiment of this nature have a legitimate chance of being unsuccessful and especially incredibly damaging. Therefore, it is incredibly important that all ethical guidelines are observed and followed in order to keep the procedure as risk-free as possible. Ethical guidelines include voluntary participation and withdrawal, confidentiality, consent and debriefing.
Putting oneself in the situation of Charlie's experiment, it is clear to see the myriad of ethical issues that arise from the procedure set by Professor Nemur and his team. For one, Charlie's participation was not entirely voluntary, seeing as he was recommended for the operation from a school. During the operation, Charlie was strapped to the surgical bed, an undoubtedly cautionary act, however this definitely abolished Charlie's right to withdraw during the procedure. This is supplemented with the fact that he was under general anaesthetic during the experiment, keeping him oblivious in any situation, even if the experiment went wrong. It is unknown whether or not whether the procedure was private, therefore, it is also unclear whether the experiment was under confidentiality or otherwise. Consent was given, yet it was only given from Charlie's family who shunned and kicked him out of the house, therefore making them unworthy suitors to give consent to such a high-risk experiment. Charlie was debriefed to a certain extent, however, he wasn't informed of the consquences of the experiment, which in this case resulted in Charlie's diminishing intellect in the long run.
Moving to a broader spectrum, tampering with one's brain is an ethical issue in itself. Changing one's true personality and nature by artificially changing the composition of one's bio matter is completely wrong and inhumane, seeing as the risks involved are so high. Changing one's intellect artificially and so dramatically involves changing their DNA, which is a code that is unique to every single living being which is a blueprint to our body's structure and functions. To be human is to be unique and natural, not artificial. Had a procedure such as Charlie's been reviewed and considered by a authoritative figure or organisation, it would have been certainly rejected due to the ethical issues it bring to the table.

Do you think that Charlie was better off after having the treatment?
Personally, I do not think that Charlie was better off after having the treatment, in fact, I think he was worse-off. Post-operation, he received a boost of intelligence in which he rapidly gained knowledge and awareness of his surroundings. The downside to this is that he loses his only friends and he remembers the horrors in his past. After this stage, his intellectual state diminishes as part of the consequences of the experiment back to its original state, if not worse. A cruel turn of fortune occurs at this stage as Charlie knows that his intellect is deteriorating and there is nothing that he can do about it. Tragically, Charlie ends up in a worse state than before, losing his intellect, friends and emotions and eventually passes away.

# data[].attributes.body
Microphone on Hotswap is faulty.
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?

When conducting an investigation that involves human psychological research, ethics is an extremely relevant issue at hand. Due to the experimental nature of an investigation, outcomes are not guaranteed to be positive and throughout history there have been many examples of investigations such as Project MK Ultra that have left participants with long and short term psychological, mental and emotional damage. Ethical guidelines such as confidentiality, voluntary participation and withdrawal, informed consent and debriefing are those that must be implemented to ensure minimal harm to participant or participants. However, in some studies, researchers propose to follow these guidelines, however do not. In Charlie’s case it is unclear whether confidentiality is upheld. In terms of voluntary participation and withdrawal, Charlie did not participate entirely voluntarily as Alice Kinnian was asked to recommend a student from her school. Charlie may have felt pressured to agree due to his romantic interest in Alice Kinnian and his strong desire to impress her. Charlie was placed under general anaesthetic when undergoing his operation, he was also strapped to the operating table. Of course, these procedures may be justified as required for success of the operation, however this means that Charlie was stripped of his right to withdraw, in addition he was not informed of this right. In terms of informed consent, Charlie was not truly informed of the details of the investigation prior to his family consenting to his participation and he was unaware of the amount of time it might take for him to grow in intellect as well as possible repercussions of his participation. The fact that his family was chosen to give consent may be deemed unethical as his family had no concern for his welfare, this is evident in him being abandoned at a young age. Much evidence of debriefing is not present either. Therefore in this situation, it is likely that in the presence of an ethics committee, the investigation may not have been allowed to go ahead without changes due to the large of amount harm likely to be caused to the participant. Finally, another ethical issue that may arise is whether it is ethical for experiments of such a nature should be allowed to take place. Many may argue that in such a situation, the researcher is playing God’s role and that this is unethical.

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the 'treatment?

I believe that Charlie was deeply affected by having the treatment in ways that are irreversible. It was almost a rude awakening for him as he was finally able to open his eyes to the atrocities that had been happening to him a daily basis on the part of others. Quotes such as “I wish I never had the experiment because now I know how people make fun of me." (Keyes 192), show the deep despair that Charlie was feeling after he had realised how others were treating him. In several other occasions, Charlie’s false sense of hope was shattered through his realisation that being of extremely high intellect is just as limiting as being of extremely low intellect. He also begins to realise that others will criticise him no matter what he may change about himself this leaves him a deep state of self-conflict. His inability to act on his romantic interest for Alice Kinnian also leaves Charlie severely hopeless. This leaves the reader with the view that intellect, without emotion has no direction and it is emotion that Charlie lacked despite gaining intellect, therefore he remained just as worse off after having the treatment as before.

# data[].attributes.body
If audio's unclear refer to my script;

# data[].attributes.body
 dig up memories of past traumatic experiences he has suffered. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Minh- Flowers For Algernon Ethical Issues

# data[].attributes.subject
Minh- Flowers For Algernon Ethical Issues

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?
The main issues that arise from human psychological experimentation is the fact that the outcome is almost always something unknown and the consent that has to be given for the experimentation to occur.
One of the main reasons why scientists do experiments is to discover the unknown and test what the outcome is. In Flowers for Algernon the scientists use Charlie to test something that had previously been only used on a mouse. When they are experimenting on Charlie the risk that something might go wrong is greater than when using a mouse as Charlie is a human even though, to the scientists, he is also just an experiment.
When giving consent the person who is having the experiment done on them is unsure of the outcomes meaning they are agreeing to something that could end up dangerous. If something does go wrong, technically the person on which the experiment is performed on did give consent but the consent never stated what was going to happen, as the outcome is unknown. If they had any idea of might happen they probably would have never participated. In Charlie's case he wasn't even able to give consent him self meaning he had limited knowledge about what was happening to him because of his low intelligence.
Do you think Charlie was better off after having the 'treatment?'
I think that Charlie was better off before having the 'treatment' because even though he had very low intelligence level, he was generally a happy person. After the 'treatment' he gained many emotions and feelings meaning he was able to witness how his work mates treated him as well as memories from the past.  When his intelligence started to slowly disappear, he had to live through the terrifying experience of losing everything.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human physiological experimentation?

One of the ethical issues that arises from psychological experimentation on humans is that scientists are delving into new forms of experimentation, where the outcome is somewhat unknown. With the experiment not being on an object or animal, (which is already not fair on the animal, as there is no consent to the experiment occurring), but actually on a human’s psychology, scientists are under pressure to not make a mistake as it could cost a life. In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie is treated almost exactly the same as the mouse that had also been experimented, which shows that the scientists didn’t think of Charlie as much more than an experiment. Another ethical issue is that Charlie didn’t actually know what the process of the experiment was, so his consent was the belief that he would just be smart suddenly. Charlie didn’t know what the side effects or other things that would happen because of the experiment. This also falls into the next question.

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the ‘treatment?’

After having the ‘treatment,’ Charlie was no better off than he was beforehand. After the treatment, he had to encounter experiences that he had not considered or known were possible previously. Having to find out that the people he had formerly called his ‘friends,’ were actually bullying him, as previously, he wasn’t intelligent enough and didn’t have the knowledge about emotions to know that they were making fun of him. Charlie was better off when he didn’t know this, because it actually didn’t affect him in any way not knowing that they weren’t his friends. It was extremely difficult for him to go through the pain of finding out about it so soon after getting his new intelligence, and the emotions he felt were too much for him to be going through so early in the ‘treatment.’ Charlie, when giving consent to the experiment going ahead, did not know what would happen due to his intelligence being increased at such an amount, if he had known he probably wouldn’t have agreed to the experiment, which would have ultimately been the best option for him.

# data[].attributes.body
Psychological experimentation is one of the more difficult areas of science to discuss in terms of ethics. In the novel Flowers For Algernon, it is specifically stated that Charlie was unable to give permission for the experiment, since he was not considered capable of giving legal permission. This raises the question of whether it was ethical to perform the experiment. Another aspect of this is whether the experiment was even ready for humans. Algernon is the only mouse who had been given an operation comparative to Charlie, meaning that the experiment had not been fully researched, and was not ready for human experimentation.
However, I do think that Charlie was better off for having had the treatment. Despite the questionable usage of scientific method, the treatment did work, and Charlie benefited greatly, despite the obvious drawbacks. His eventual loss of intelligence was unfortunate, but his period of genius improved his life, and he was able to finally give his sister closure, have two semi-normal romantic relationships and make a scientific breakthrough. His emotional state during his period of high IQ was clearly worse than before and after, but I believe he was better off in his understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Flowers For Algernon Ethical Issues - James

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation? 
The major equitable issues with the experimentation were the unknown ramifications and dubious consen

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?

*Laptop Microphone's picked up static over voice; Was unable to make a comprehensible recording.

One of the primary issues involved with performing human psychological experimentation is consent, especially when the patient may not fully understand the conditions of the said experiment. A prime example of this would be Charlie and the situation he's currently in. He is obviously unable to fully understand the consequences of the complex experiment due to his mental condition, and should obviously not be asked to give consent. The next logical step would be to ask the patient's family for consent, but it's clear that his family has abandoned him. In this instance, the scientists would be the only ones able to give consent for the experiment. However, the scientists are clearly intent on using Charlie as a 'guinea pig', to prove their experiments.

DO YOU THINK CHARLIE WAS BETTER OFF AFTER HAVING THE 'TREATMENT?'

Charlie ends off worse off after the surgery, in my opinion. While he did get a temporary intelligence boost, his mind eventually deteriorates and results in his implied death. After the surgery, Charlie develops to a point where he is completely aware of his surroundings, constantly gaining knowledge. However, this newfound 'consciousness' causes many problems for Charlie (Being fired from the bakery, losing his 'friends') and also helps to dig up memories of past traumatic experiences he has suffered. As his mind deteriorates due to the experiment, he reverts back to his original state. However, he does so with recollections of the cruel glimpse at life the surgery gives him. Most painfully, his brain starts deteriorating with Charlie knowing exactly what's happening, and how there is no way to do anything about it. This results in him being sent to the Warren State Home, the one place Charlie was trying to avoid. Looking back, it probably would have been more beneficial for Charlie to live his whole life as a 'r e t a r d e d' adult. This way, he could have lived a blissful life, untouched by the many problems, and traumatic memories the actual Charlie faced in the book.

# data[].attributes.body
WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL ISSUES THAT ARISE HUMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTATION?

An issue that comes into play when these kinds of surgeries occur is informed consent. While a patient may be told what is going to happen, there is never a guarantee that they know exactly what is happening, as surgeries like this are performed on people with a limited understanding of the world. There is also the possibility of potential patients being manipulated into agreeing, therefore concerns are raised about the legitimacy of their consent.

In some situations like this, they would go to the family for consent, but again there are questionable morals, seeing as Charlie's family didn't really care about him, and there are other individuals in the same circumstances, so this isn't a way to clear the conscience of scientists.

There was a problem in this, where they didn't consider long-term problems. They considered Charlie to be on the same level as Algernon, and treated them with the same respect. They were both considered to be experiments, or tests, where any failure would just have helped them with the next patients.

DO YOU THINK CHARLIE WAS BETTER OFF AFTER HAVING THE 'TREATMENT?'

I don't think that there is any way that Charlie's life was improved after having the treatment. In this case, ignorance was definitey bliss. He had to come to the realisation that his friends made fun of him, and he was forced to recognise past behaviour and other's. He is given a chance to experience his life as it would have been if he didn't have intellectual limitations. However, he still doesn't receive any support throughout it, which is something he desired even before he got the treatment. The increase in intelligence also made him aware when it began to disappear, when he began to spiral into depression.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?
One of the major issues that scientists have to confront before any kind of experimentation, especially psychological experimentation, is does the potential gain outweigh the potential danger. There is also the issue of respect for those undergoing the experiment. The people in the book disrespect Charlie in the same way as they disrespect Algernon, they are both treated as lab rats. Pain or helplessness is made worse by being conscious of it and Charlie’s newfound intelligence allows him to see the world around him in greater detail and to see his place in that world. Experiencing physical pain is one thing but mental anguish requires understanding. There is an issue here about what it is to be sentient; there is a relationship between intelligence and sentience, but how intelligent do you need to be to be conscious of your surroundings and how conscious of your surroundings do you need to be before it is unethical to harm you for the potential benefit of others?

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the treatment?
Charlie ends the story worse off for the surgery. His mind deteriorates rapidly and it is suggested he eventually dies, much like Algernon did. After the surgery, Charlie grows to a point where he is completely aware of his surroundings. He learns obsessively and constantly gains knowledge. He then has to witness this knowledge disappear, and watch himself deteriorate and wither to his previous state. He has to live with the knowledge this will happen and that impending fear. The surgery gives him a cruel glimpse at life before robbing him of it.

# data[].attributes.body
(Microphone didn't work)
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?
The key word in the question is experimentation, meaning exploring the unknown. The implications and aftermath of experiments on such a vital part of our being could be catastrophic, it is also near impossible to reverse anything done to the human mind as a result of it's fragility which comes along with its complexity. It cannot be considered ethical to experiment on another human being if the consequences are not known. Another area of concern is consent. In the scenario of Flowers for Algernon, Charlie is not able to give consent for an experiment with suck high stakes, and while this is acknowledged by professors who instead ask Charlie's family for consent. This however, is not ethical either. Charlies family does not have any concern for his well being and therefore immediately agree to the procedure. Human psychological experimentation is also against certain religious beliefs. Comparisons were even made in the novel between Charlie's procedure and the story of Adam and Eve. Scientists and the surgeons they work with may be accused of 'playing God' if they attempt to alter someones psyche.

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the 'treatment?
I cannot create any persuasive argument for Charlie being better off post procedure. Before the treatment he was gentle and kind, even if he acted like a child. The only negative aspect of Charlies life was his 'friends' at the bakery, they were incessantly treating him as a punchline for their sick jokes. I would argue however that this did not have a negative impact on Charlie's life. To quote Thomas Gray; 'ignorance is bliss'. Charlie, from his childlike viewpoint thought they were simply acting as friends should and was not at all offended by their actions. After the experiment, Charlie was in a state of constant turmoil, even at his intellectual peak. He lost both his friends and job, he was alienated by everyone he knew except for Alice Kinnian. The only positive impact the experiment had on Charlie was the relationship he was able to build with Alice. Ironically, the experiment also destroyed this relationship. As Charlie's intelligence increased it created a barrier between the two similar to the one created by Charlie's lack of intelligence, the only difference being Charlie was aware of the barrier. All of this pales in comparison to what Charlie experienced as his newfound intellect depleted. He fell into a state of manic depression aw he was aware of his knowledge slipping way but was unable to prevent it. The impacts of the experiment where far from over at the end of the novel however. The final act of Charlie's man-made intelligence was to send himself to the Warren State home, this was the single topic Charlie had a strong opinion on at the start of the novel. He was irrefutably against being placed in the institution and was even proud of avoiding it. This proves it was a decision made by Charlie's dwindling intelligence to sentence himself to the Warren State home and as a result would immediately regret doing so after he returned to his original state of mind. He would then be unable to leave as the staff would translate this desire as a further decline in his intelligence and deny his exit, trapping him in the place he was so scared of.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the ethical issues that arise from human psychological experimentation?
The major equitable issues with the experimentation were the unknown ramifications and dubious consent. As Charlie was incapable of independently decision-making, permission for conducting the experiment was obtained from a relative which is common (for example with parent caregivers/guardians and minors), however in context of the novel this is unjustifiable and cruel. Charlie had no ongoing contact with his immediate family, therefore they were unaware of his progress and accustomed lifestyle and consequently were in no position to endorse such consequential surgical operations. Furthermore, the data was attained at the expense of Charlie's well-being, mental and physical capabilities - ultimately his intellectual limitations were taken advantage of, without guaranteed success which generally follows extensive research dismissed in the described scenario.

Do you think Charlie was better off after having the 'treatment?'

Personally, I believe Charlie himself received no benefits from the operation. Charlie was essentially objectified through categorisation as a "test subject", and his individuality entirely erased, hence his explainable desire to escape observation. Although he was exposed to new emotions and physical sensations, developed a variety of new romantic and platonic relationships, and was "enlightened" through education, the advantageous position he acquired temporarily, distanced him from the majority, regardless of the below or above average IQ. He faced substantial difficulties in communication and acceptance both leading up to and following the surgery, so whilst his intelligence increased briefly, he never received the love and long-term support he craved.

Eventually all gained privileges dissipated, and it remained unknown whether Charlie would be capable of maintaining pre-operation knowledge after gradual intellectual decline or would further suffer from a continuously lowering IQ. It can be argued that Charlie's sacrifice contributed to a greater cause, aiding future research in the field of psychology, nonetheless the author specifies the premature involvement of human subjects in experimentation hence establishing the fundamentally morally-unethical nature of the situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Padlet Response for Flowers for Algernon.mp3