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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.