Baumrind hypothesized that Stanley Milgram provided no post-experiment psychological help to those subjects who were emotionally traumatized by the effects of their actions; furthermore, there were serious clinical complications that afflicted multiple subjects after the experiment, one of which included a mild heart attack (Baumrind 90-92). In essence, Baumrind believes that the same experiment should have been performed in a less threatening environment, free of the emotionally damaging consequences resulting from the dire situation (Baumrind 92). Parker agrees that Milgram should have implemented precautionary measures to ensure that the experiment was not emotionally taxing on his subject or biased and inaccurate (Parker 99). Parker believes that Milgram should have placed a giant, red, accessible button in the center of the room for subjects to automatically push and eject themselves from the situation, replacing the vague door placed inside each test room (Parker 103). Parker surmises that the addition of the red button would most likely have caused an increase in the number of subjects who chose to remove themselves from the situation; as a result, less emotional harm would be inflicted on the subject and the overall outcome of the experiment may be changed (Parker 103). Furthermore, Saul McLeod, the author of "The Milgram Experiment", agrees with Parker and Baumrind, believing that the Milgram experiment is extremely biased and unethical (McLeod). McLeod speculates that Milgram's use of deception and lack of emotional protection for the subjects was abhorrent. He also questioned the authenticity of the experiment after Milgram placed only men in the student position (McLeod). Because of this apparently biased choice, McLeod automatically deemed the entire experiment impracticable (McLeod). Although many psychologists,