Flowers for Algernon

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1667129.htm

Way back in 1959 Daniel Keyes won awards for his short story Flowers for Algernon. If you have never read it, let me strongly encourage you to track down a copy, set aside some time in quiet, and do so. It is a touching story that should really make a person think. Since I know how we as a people are, I will briefly summarize the story.
Charly is a retarded man who works as a janitor. He perceives his coworkers as friends, though the reader recognizes their behavior as that of jerks as they lock him in closets and various other "hilarious" pranks...very mean spirited.
Later he becomes the subject of an experiment. Scientists have been testing a drug on a rat that dramatically changes its intelligence to where it is near genius. Charly undertakes the same experiment and becomes very intelligent, far more intelligent than most people around him. There is more to the story, but you should really read it yourself. It will make you smile, perhaps laugh, probably cry, and hopefully think.
Ultimately, one of the questions it raises is the morality of altering the "natural state"...was the experiment justified for Charlie? (Yes, I changed the spelling...read the book and it will make sense.) What about the eventual negative effects? Does man have the right to "play God"?
Let me start by saying...framing the question that way is unfair. It automatically carries connotations that are, at best, subjective. Why is working on physical or mental capabilities "playing God" when working to cure cancer or fix a common cold is "practicing medicine"? Why is pulling the plug on ARTIFICIAL life support "playing God" when performing a hysterectomy, which, if I understand it correctly, ends the possibility of conception, not considered "playing God"?
For that matter...why are medical procedures considered "playing God" but attempts to control or redesign the environment are not? For those of us who believe in a God who created the world, is it any less His work because it does not "live" or "breathe" in the same sense as sentient beings? So when you see that monstrous machine roll by bearing the slogan "We Move the Earth", since they are not leaving it in its "natural" state...why is that not playing God?
So we are going to frame the argument in what I believe to be a more accurate way. At what point are medical procedures intended to positively impact the quality of life for a human being not a good idea?
There are a lot of arguments I will listen to. Let's include the moral justifiability of experimenting on animals. Good idea? Bad idea? Justifiable? Those are valid questions with solid arguments on both sides of the equation. Can you hurt to heal? Again, solid question.
Yesterday I posted a random piece about some of the stuff Mom went through. I tell you this...I predict that in a hundred years, medical opinion will be laughing at the backwardness of a people who used chemotherapy as a healing procedure just as we laugh at the use of leeches in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Think about it...chemo is a poison. It almost kills the person. Yet chemotherapy is the accepted procedure for dealing with many forms of cancer. So is radiation. Here is an idea for you...next time you get sick, go stand in front of your microwave for a few hours, that ought to heal you.
Yeah, I know, I am being a bit facetious there. But after watching Jack and Mom on chemo, after seeing Mom and a couple others on Morphine, I think the question of hurting to help is a legitimate one.
The headline that led me to the article I linked to was "New Test for Genetic Disorders Raises Designer Baby Concerns". Naturally, the first thing that entered my mind was the nature of utopian novels in the 21st century. Here is a hint: they always end badly, with the utopina ideal proving to be distopian for everyone else. Of course, they are also fictional...the running theme, though, is an idea seems great but the unintended side effects have consequences that outweigh the "perfection" of the world.
Then i read the article. And something else entered my mind. Stupidity.
But the new test has sparked questions about the morality of creating disease free embryos.
Why? Because illness breeds character? Because tought times produce better people? What possible uestions could exist? I hope this is just an extrapolation gone horribly wrong. Sadly, here is a quote that, if not badly misquoted and horribly out of context, backs that up:
Simone Aspis is from the Council of Disabled People.
"It may start off being for people with terminal conditions, but then it will move on to other less significant conditions," she said.
"It sends out a signal that people are worth less than other people, it sends out a signal that actually disabled people will be better off not alive."
Oh, Heaver forfend we give people who live a life of disability and discomfort the option to run and jump and play...how does it make them "worth less"? How does it make them better off dead? No, the opportunity is to make them better off physically and still alive. News flash, Simone; it is not an ADVANTAGE to have a disability...particularly if that disability could conceivably be prevented.
Last night I read an article about 11 cousins who, to prevent themselves from getting a hereditary and lethal cancer, had their stomachs removed. Why? Because they believed it would improve their quality of life. I am sure someone, somewhere, has "ethical questions" about that because it gives the impression that cancer sufferers are "worth less". I am still stunned at the people complaining about the ethics of giving the woman the new face. Apparently they are unfamiliar with plastic surgery...
As you can probably tell, I am having some difficulty wrapping my mind around the source of the argument that improving quality of life through corrective laser surgery is a wonderful thing but preventing that surgery from being needed by altering things in the womb is ethically questionable. I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I am going to put a hold on it and see what some other people think.
No, no I am not. Seriously, people alter many things about themselves. Hair is colored, often bizarrely, we curl and straighten and shave and implant and regrow hair...we use contact lenses to change eye color, we spend time at the gym to sculpt our bodies, we target various areas of the body to enhance with workouts, surgery, etc., and manipulate our diets for the same reason, some people eating processed food for the benefits, others eating organic for the same reason...
The health industry is huge because it is so close to people's hearts, and so is the beauty industry. Why then would anyone object to parents having the opportunity to conceivably predispose a child towards health and current societal standards of appearance? Where is the ethical question? And if it is a question there...why are people not picketing the hospitals and make-up counters?