This is my first movie review. Knowing the young version of Al Pacino from the "Godfather" series and "Scent of a Woman", and seeing him in "Doctor Death" is like seeing a god-like actor getting old. The sense of substitution is very strong.
In the film, Al Pacino plays a doctor who is striving to legalize euthanasia. From the perspective of choice, should the tortured person endure severe pain to continue life, or die with dignity in "euthanasia"? Therefore, the so-called euthanasia , with the interpretation of the American "Black's Law Dictionary", it refers to the act or practice of putting to death a person suffering from an incurable disease and extreme suffering based on compassion.
The film confronts this topic directly, using five or six court proceedings and euthanasia videos to illustrate the wishes of the patient and his family. The doctor's acquittal would be a risk factor for genocide.
Compared with his opponents, his supporters have no chance of winning in court and public opinion.
In the film, the doctor's former lawyer only used him as a springboard for public opinion to participate in the election, gaining exposure to the winning shot, and then stressed that he did not support euthanasia legislation to gain popular vote support.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the film turned the final trial into a murder and controlled drug-delivery trial by dropping the doctor-assisted suicide charge.
This is what the female judge said in the last trial: "You came here to fight for the last time, but you chose the wrong place. Our country can accommodate a hundred opinions because we resolve internal conflicts through civilized and non-violent methods. , We have methods and means to denounce laws that are against the 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 can't break the law, or play the law with applause In between, no one ignores the heated discussions and mood swings caused by the end of life and pain control, and I think this debate will continue in a calm and sane way after this trial is over, and your actions have faded the public memory, but this trial is not about this debate, it is about you, sir, you have defied and challenged the authority of the law and the Supreme Court, and you have disregarded your own professional conduct, this trial is about Disregard the law, and you disregard the society that exists and thrives by the power of the law. The law is supreme. You have the guts to show the world what you do on national television, and the law will punish you, you You have publicly stated your intentions many times, trying to use this as an excuse for your contempt of the law, and because of this, this court has sentenced you to a maximum sentence of ten to twenty-five years in prison, sir, you can consider stopping now”
Yes, the trial was not about this debate, but his personal behavior. One cannot help but wonder, tomorrow, can the law allow us to die in euthanasia? The Netherlands allows newborn babies to be euthanized under certain circumstances, making the Netherlands de facto the first country to legalize infant euthanasia. Recalling from Xi'an uremia patient's request for euthanasia to the media, to the death of the first euthanasia case in China; from the battle for the right of life and death of American female vegetative Terri Schiavo to the successive implementation of foreign legislation, every topic about euthanasia It's exciting. Faced with the rising calls for euthanasia in society, we have also seen the efforts made by CPPCC members at the two sessions. And this is nothing more than two voices, life or death, each holding its own words.
Euthanasia proponents believe that the law gives patients the right to choose, that patients can decide when and how to end their lives, and can choose to leave the world with dignity.
Opponents criticize that euthanasia is suicide by choice, which goes against the will of life, reduces the value of life, and will lead some patients to choose suicide prematurely. It goes against natural ethics.
In my opinion, life or death, sometimes not a natural process, can be a difficult choice.
"To live or to perish, this is a question worth considering. To endure the tyrannical arrow of fate in silence, or to stand up against the boundless suffering of the world, and sweep them away through struggle. Which of these two acts is more noble? ? Dead, asleep, everything is over; if in this kind of sleep, the wounds of our hearts, as well as the unavoidable blows of countless other flesh and blood, can disappear from here, that is the end we can't ask for "This famous question from Shakespeare is still full of philosophical thinking. Only a few hundred years later, we still have not been able to give the correct answer that is unanimously recognized.
So how far is the legislation?
Judging from the legal provisions of our country, the right to life of citizens is paramount and the most basic human right of citizens. Only in cases where there is a legal basis, the life of others can be deprived of, such as the death penalty sentenced by the court to be executed immediately. Other than that, no one is allowed to deprive others of their lives in any way.
Due to the lack of relevant legal basis, in our country, neither the patient nor his family members promise to give up the right to life. In this case, if active euthanasia is performed, it may constitute intentional homicide. Of course, this is a relatively minor intentional homicide. In theory, many scholars agree or think that efforts should be made in the direction of euthanasia legislation, but the corresponding conditions and supporting mechanisms cannot be accomplished overnight. If this series of conditions are met, individuals believe that euthanasia should be respected. However, if these preconditions are not met, rushing into law is not necessarily a good thing, and may even bring huge risks. To realize the legislation on euthanasia, three prerequisites must be met: to achieve the popularization and high development of medical technology, and hospitals to make accurate judgments on whether patients can be euthanized; to improve the national medical security system, to avoid some critically ill terminally ill patients after the euthanasia legislation is approved. Patients are "euthanized" in order to "relieve the burden" of the family; vigorously improve the professional ethics of doctors and gain public trust, so as to avoid relaxing the conditions of euthanasia, and even the unfilial children of patients bribe doctors and create euthanasia incidents in order to get rid of their maintenance obligations.
Society is complex and laws are constantly being improved. Freedom and democracy, fairness and justice have always been evolving. All history is modern history, and there is something to look forward to and something to follow.
(My family has also discussed this topic about my grandmother who was tortured by illness in her later years, so I am deeply touched. If medicine and law are perfect, I hope that under her will, I can spend the last time of my life without so much pain. About my grandmother, my memory is that she brought me the candy hidden in the box, the layers of foot-binding cloth left by the old society, the teaching of planning and embroidery, and the time when I was tormented by illness in my old age. shouting)
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
