The endless entanglement of right to die, morality, religion and law

Noel 2022-04-20 09:02:14

Quite an interesting film with all sorts of paradoxical but mutually restrictive conflicts.

The film mainly mentions the relationship between euthanasia and human nature, morality, religion and law.

Assuming that the patient is suffering from a very tolerable affliction, from a personal perspective, the patient may crave relief. From the perspective of the patient's family, they may extend the patient's life at all costs. Even if the patient has completely lost self-care since then, it can only be called "alive", not alive. So should this kind of retention be called kindness or cruelty?

The professional ethics of doctors is to save the dying and to practice humanitarianism. So does the behavior of doctors assisting patients to perform euthanasia violate the professional ethics of doctors? Now the most frequently mentioned in the publicity of medical institutions is nothing more than the remarkable effect and the greatest reduction of patient suffering. If the patient's trauma or disease is unavoidable, irreversible, and irreversible, whether the use of various medical devices and drugs to prolong the patient's life is still consistent with our definition of ethics.

Or, from the perspective of devout Christians, life is the masterpiece of the Creator. The happiness gained and the suffering endured are all given by God. They are God's guidance and have an existential value. If we use the words of our ancestors, it is the parents of body hair. If it's unfortunate, if you don't have any beliefs, you can turn into a roaring body, and the second one shouts, my life is up to me.

So, from a legal point of view, is choosing euthanasia a legitimate right of citizens?

The law provides a code of conduct for the state and society, and uses this set of standards to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of citizens. It is a symbol of fairness, justice and order. The problem is that the above justice is not based on the same standard. From a humanitarian point of view, ending the suffering of patients is charitable. If it starts from religious judgment, it is extremely evil and cruel.

Whether citizens have the right to die may have been a question mark from beginning to end. If you take the right to choose death as the right to take the initiative to end your own life, then of course you can choose the ending method in a quiet corner at night or on a street where people come and go, such as sleeping pills, cutting wrists, jumping off a building or jumping into the sea. So, in theory we are indeed the masters of our lives. But in fact, if you want to legalize death, you have to go through various judicial procedures, and even face the possibility of being dismissed. The reason is, I know you are suffering, but you are not up to the requirements. In this case, the right to die becomes an empty talk.

In addition, the ending of the film is also a highlight. According to the judge, if there is any dissatisfaction, they can express their opinions through legal channels without challenging the legal authority and without crossing the legal bottom line.

But the reality is that it is the last word to get up from where you fall. In most cases, only when there are conflicts, individual voices are widely concerned, the will of the people is too strong, or even some factors have caused social chaos, it is possible to attract discussion and get enough attention. The process of attracting attention is not necessarily legal, but the important thing is actually a degree.

The phenomenon reflected in this film has continued from ancient times to today, and it may still be an inconclusive topic even in the future.

We come into the world with pain.

If I am unfortunately devastated by an incurable disease during my lifetime, I would like to have the right to choose a peaceful ending. This is my respect for my life.

View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews

Extended Reading

You Don't Know Jack quotes

  • Jack Kevorkian: It's emotionalism. You know, when heart transplants first started... there was the same prevalent feeling, I mean, even among doctors... that it was wrong, it was contrary to God's will, contrary to nature. Isn't it ghoulish to rip a person's chest open and take out a heart? Or a bypass operation? Ether is the same thing. You have ether, been around for centuries, it wasn't used. Not till 1846. It was discovered in 1543... and before that, everybody was being operated on while they were awake. Surgeons were cutting them open while they were awake. Did you know that, Geoff?

    Geoffery Fieger: No.

    Jack Kevorkian: On, yes. And you know why it was banned? Because of religious dogma. Because of the foolish notion... that there's a God Almighty who wills us to suffer.

  • Judge Cooper: You invited yourself here to make a final stand.

    Judge Cooper: You invited yourself to the wrong forum.

    Judge Cooper: Our nation tolerates differences of opinions, because we have a civilized and non-violent way of resolving our conflicts.

    Judge Cooper: We have the means and methods to protest laws with which we disagree.

    Judge Cooper: You can criticize the law, lecture about the law, speak to the media or petition voters.

    Judge Cooper: But you must always stay within the limits provided by the law. You may not break the law, or take the law into your own hands.

    Judge Cooper: No one's unmindful of the controversy and emotion that exists over end-of-life issues and pain control.

    Judge Cooper: I assume the debate will continue in a calm and reasoned forum long after this trial and your activities have faded from the public memory.

    Judge Cooper: But this trial was not about that controversy.

    Judge Cooper: This trial was about you, sir.

    Judge Cooper: You've ignored and challenged the legislature and the supreme court.

    Judge Cooper: Moreover, you've defied your own medical profession.

    Judge Cooper: This trial was about lawlessness, about your disregard for a society that exists and flourishes because of the strength of our legal system.

    Judge Cooper: No one is above the law.

    Judge Cooper: You had the audacity to go on national television, show the world what you did, and dare the legal system to stop you.

    Judge Cooper: You publicly and repeatedly announced your intentions to disregard the laws of Michigan.

    Judge Cooper: Because of this, I am imposing the maximum sentence of 10 to 25 years.

    Judge Cooper: You may now, sir, consider yourself stopped.