Stay in your Cupboard, Boy!
The Forbidden Experiment: Experimentation on Children. Rappaccini…Guilty.
When we turn on the television or surf the web, we often stumble upon some bizarre stories. CNN’s offbeat news, for example, presents lots of interesting stories that I know always entertain me. But what’s scary, however, is that at times, we stumble upon experiments that are uncomfortable to us, experiments that we do not agree with, experiments that terrify us.
Some news articles that I fell upon were about children who were test subjects of their very own parents. Who would be bold or even heartless enough to experiment on their own child? This is a one shot deal on your very own flesh and blood. What gives a parent the right to sacrifice their child in this way? (sorry…not a subtle reference to God’s sacrifice of Jesus…I don’t belive that that was an experiment, but anyway…) If you were their creator, does this give you the power to do as you please with your creation? Is this the case for Victor and the monster in Frankenstein?
The stories that I read about told of parents who locked their children at home in a basement/cupboard/bedroom for years just to see how they would react when thrown back into society. In my opinion, Rappaccini was guilty of conducting the “forbidden experiment” by using his daughter Beatrice as a means to compliment his experimentation on the fusion of plants and humans. What I was wondering though was where you think we can draw the line on experimentation? My guess is that most everyone would agree that experimentation on children can be regarded as the forbidden experiment, but what else would you consider “forbidden?” Yes, nowadays experimentation has led us to discoveries and advancements that life would be difficult without but what about the sacrifices that come along the way? Can we say that they were worth it or even necessary? Is the greater good always the best answer as long as the sacrifice is “small?”
Read about some offbeat news from CNN.com
posted by turtle soup at 11:18 AM
2 Comments:
Yes, this is a controversial topic. Although most people would agree that testing on humans in such conditions is horrifying, where does society draw the line? For example, no experiments like Milgram's obedience study could be done nowadays, yet I feel that this experiment taught us much about mankind.
Some guiding principles on drawing the line on experimentation should include: long term effects (physiological and psychological), voluntary, and significance of information discovered
The Harry Potter picture got my attention. I really do think in the case of Frankenstein's monster, Rappaccini's Daughter, Harry Potter, real life and where ever else that it applies. Once a person/creature/ect. comes into being (take their first breath), their creator/parent/ect does not have the right to use them for their own bidding. Yes, they did create them, but after that, they are their own person with their own set of liberties to not be test subjects.
I would say that cloning also goes into the forbidden science category. It raises ethical eyebrows. Not only that, but it is an extension of your question. Is it ethical to clone an animal to kill it for food? (reccently FDA approved). And if it is ok, then is it also ok to clone/create a human for body parts? (i.e. The Island, My Sister's Keeper) Where is the line drawn?
Post a Comment
<< Home