He goes on to write that when he sent a questionnaire to all his subjects along with a report explaining the true purpose of the experiment, the responses were troubling. One man wrote that he had a heart attack in the months after the experiment and attended group therapy. Was this really the direct result of Milgram's daring obedience experiment? Parker claims that the subjects were properly debriefed after the experiment and told exactly what had happened and why; therefore, they could not have been traumatized when they were clearly told that they had in fact not harmed any person during the entire procedure. Parker then appropriately comes to Milgram's aid while actually conveying that Milgram's career has truly been affected by the obedience experiment permanently looming over his head. Parker defends Milgram as a human being, illustrating that his only intention was actually to reveal the truth about people's natural response to authority (Parker 100). Theodore Dalrymple, once again, would completely agree with Parker's statement. Dalrymple actually adds that if Milgram had informed his subjects of what was about to happen and had used “proper ethical measures,” as critics said about his failed experiment, his experiment might not have happened at all. due to the lack of real reaction to the real-life situation that Milgram actually received by not informing his subjects. He would never have achieved his breakthrough findings on obedience if he had conducted the experiment with any other approach, Dalrymple says. His final judgment on the experiment comes from two considerations, in total agreement with Parker: first, the subjects approved their participation and had complete control over when they felt like exiting the situation they were in; similar to Parker's evaluation of the debriefing provided after the experiment. Secondly, Dalrymple effectively