First of all: the beliefs of the East and the West are different, and it is clearly stipulated in the Bible: "You shall not murder", which of course includes himself. And said: People who commit suicide will not go to heaven, and they will go to purgatory after death. In Western religions, suicide is unforgivable. Therefore, the parade in the movie called: Life is God's choice God decides life. Religion is an important factor influencing their views.
Second: as a law, there is more to consider than jake. In Jack's final lawsuit, the prosecutor mentioned the Holocaust, and Jake fought back with a roar. Although prosecutors have exaggerated ingredients. But it is true that the question is not simply whether euthanasia is legal, but also the subject of euthanasia, which is easy for others to ignore in the movie. Because jake handles this problem better in the movie. A boy who tried to set himself on fire asked for euthanasia, but Jake refused. Once legislated, will the boy be classified as eligible for euthanasia or not? will cause many problems. This is just an individual case, and the U.S. Supreme Court has the sole right to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Once an explanation is made, the district court will also use it as a case, which is why the Supreme Court's decisions in the film are ambiguous or cautious.
Here, it also explains why Jake has to make things bigger and go to the High Court. In the movie, he also stated the reason, because he wanted the United States to legislate for euthanasia. The only way to get America to change the law is a judicial challenge like this. Through some special and ambiguous cases, let the U.S. High Court make judgments and interpret the Constitution, so that the law can stand on its side. The more famous ones are a series of judicial challenges in the black movement in the United States and the feminist movement, including the Stonewall incident.
Of course, I personally think that the Supreme Court judge's decision is justified. There are two reasons: one is that jake did not hire a lawyer, and he himself is not a professional legal person. The odds of winning are extremely low. He is only relying on his own power, but such suicidal complaints often fail to grasp the main point. Second: the United States is not ready to accept euthanasia. Religion is one aspect, and the other is that once the policy is relaxed and euthanasia is legalized, the problems it brings are not as simple as what we see in the movies. Maybe someone commits murder in the name of euthanasia.
PS: Our nation tolerates differences of opinions, because we have a civilized and non-violent way of resolving our conflicts. We have the means and methods to protest laws with which we disagree.
You can criticize the law, Lecture by the law, Speak to the media or petition voters, 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.
No one's unmindful of the controversy and emotion that exists over end-of -life issues and pain control.
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.
But this trial was not about that controversy. This trial was about you, sir.
You've ignored and challenged the legislature and Supreme Court.
Moreover, you're defied your own medical profession.
This trail was about lawlessness, about you disregard for a society that exists and flourishes, because of the strength of our legal system.
No one is above the law.
Our nation tolerates difference of opinions, because we have a civilized and non-violent way of resolving our conflicts. We have the means and methods to protest laws with which we disagree.
You can criticize the law, Lecture by the law, Speak to the media or petition voters, 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.
No one's unmindful of the controversy and emotion that exists over end-of-life issues and pain control.
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.
But this trial was not about that controversy. This trial was about you, sir.
You've ignored and challenged the legislature and Supreme Court.
Moreover, you're defied your own medical profession.
This trail was about lawlessness, about you disregard for a society that exists and flourishes, because of the strength of our legal system.
No one is above the law.
You came here for the last fight, but you chose the wrong place. Our country can accommodate a hundred opinions, but we resolve internal conflicts in a civilized, nonviolent manner. We have a set of ways and means to denounce laws against people's hearts; you can criticize the law, denounce the law, complain to the media or petition the voters, but you can never go beyond the boundaries of the law. You cannot break the law or play with the law. No one ignores the heated debates and mood swings caused by end-of-life and pain control. I believe that after this trial ends, the debate will continue in a calm and sensible manner, and your actions have faded from the public memory. This trial is not for this debate, but for you, sir. You have flouted and challenged the authority of the law and the Supreme Court, and you have disregarded your own professional conduct - this trial is for disregarding the law; you disregarding a society that lives and thrives by the power of the law. The law comes first. - Judgement of the Supreme Court
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
