In the book and movie Flowers for Algernon, Charlie, a mentally handicapped man, has a surgery to make him smarter, but later finds that it is temporary. When Charlie begins to get smarter, he starts to get rejected by his friends at the factory. All he wanted was to fit in, but when he became smart, he was treated as though he was an alien. Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss begin to argue and everything isn’t what Charlie thought it would be. Then he slowly begins to go back to who he was before. I feel that when doctors are trying a new thing that can potentially help people get rid of sickness or become smarter like in the story, that it is worth trying, even if there are risks.
If the treatment really works and cures someone, it would change their …show more content…
I don’t think we should test on dogs or cats, because those are house pets and it would be sad if it caused problems for them. Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. In the story I think it was ok that they tested on Algernon because they aren’t house pets and they are mammals like humans. Since they are mammals like humans the effects on the mouse would be similar as to a human. There are certain animals I think should be tested on, like mice. I think it’s really up to the patient because if they feel it is worth it and that's something they feel they should do then it's definitely ok. If they don’t feel comfortable about it or feel like it isn’t worth it then they shouldn’t have to. I think this because if it's what they want and it's available then they get to make the choice and decide if the risks are worth it. They shouldn’t be pressured or forced to do it either. If they want to take the risks and hope something good will come out of it then I think it perfectly
If the treatment really works and cures someone, it would change their …show more content…
I don’t think we should test on dogs or cats, because those are house pets and it would be sad if it caused problems for them. Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. In the story I think it was ok that they tested on Algernon because they aren’t house pets and they are mammals like humans. Since they are mammals like humans the effects on the mouse would be similar as to a human. There are certain animals I think should be tested on, like mice. I think it’s really up to the patient because if they feel it is worth it and that's something they feel they should do then it's definitely ok. If they don’t feel comfortable about it or feel like it isn’t worth it then they shouldn’t have to. I think this because if it's what they want and it's available then they get to make the choice and decide if the risks are worth it. They shouldn’t be pressured or forced to do it either. If they want to take the risks and hope something good will come out of it then I think it perfectly