I watched this movie on the recommendation of a teacher. It is said that I will have a different understanding of life. It is true.
The film presents three pairs of contradictions, which are intertwined in layers and promote the development of the plot.
1. Doctors and Police
This pair is the article's most blunt and obvious contradiction, the one between the doctor, Jack Kovakian, and the cops who have tried for years to arrest him legally. Are these two wrong? From their respective standpoints, there seems to be nothing wrong. Doctors take "relieving the suffering of patients" as their life-long practice of medicine; while the police are fulfilling "protecting citizens' right to life and safeguarding the authority of the law." This job. It seems that the two do not conflict, but the root of the conflict lies in the "euthanasia" method adopted by doctors to help patients relieve pain. At that time, people thought that it violated the "right to life" of citizens. It happened naturally.
2. Freedom and the law
At the end, the judge's classic trial speech is thought-provoking - "You came here to fight for the last time, but you chose the wrong place, our country can accommodate the opinions of a hundred schools of thought, because we Violent ways to resolve internal conflicts, we have a set of methods and means to denounce laws that go against people's hearts, you can criticize the law, denounce the law, talk to the media, or petition the voters, but you can never go beyond the boundaries of the law." Indeed, As the bottom line of behavior established by a country to maintain social order, the authority of the law naturally cannot allow others to challenge it arbitrarily. Doctors' pursuit of people's "right to die" was too advanced at that time, and the laws at that time did not recognize people's right to die, and doctors repeatedly helped patients end their own lives, and they were tempted back and forth on the edge of the law. We all yearn for free and self-initiated decisions, and how to properly handle a degree between the two is a question worthy of our continuous thinking.
3. Religious ethics and human nature
There is a scene that impressed me. When the doctor first euthanized a patient and made it public, a group of protesters came around his house, holding signs of protest, shouting: God decides life; In stark contrast, in a previous interview, the reporter asked: "What do people think of 'Dr. Kevorkian, are you playing God?'" The doctor replied: "So what? When a doctor is feeding you When he takes medicine, he is playing God!"
Religion oppresses and controls human nature and human rights, so that people's thoughts are imprisoned and their behaviors are bound. 'life is god's choice', not our own choice. We have the freedom to express speech, assembly, demonstration, etc. A series of rights such as property rights and education rights, but not the right to decide whether or not to continue one's life. Why is euthanasia being respected by more and more people now? We would rather choose a decent and dignified departure rather than continue to live in pain and mutual torture. People have the right to choose both life and death. People's hope that euthanasia is legalized is just the hope that they can exercise the last right that belongs to them and draw a happy ending to their life.
"The life that restrains freedom is not the real life" God cannot decide our life, we cannot choose whether we want to come to this world, but we can choose how to live and how to die in this world!
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
