1.
In the film, the reason why Jack Kevorkian is actively promoting the legalization of euthanasia is because of his mother. His mother once described his pain to him: "Imagine the most unbearable toothache in the world, it happens to every bone in your body." This sentence reminds me of this picture - the mother on the sickbed The whole body is full of pipes, the back of the hands are blue and purple, and the tube that drains the ascites is inserted into the abdomen. She was so thin that she took off her face, and the breathing mask was bigger than her face. The liquid medicine in the hanging bag fell drop by drop, and the monitor beside it was beeping...
Before, I had not thought deeply about the ethical and legal issues behind the "legalization of euthanasia", but simply felt that a person should have the right to choose to end his suffering with death and leave this world in a decent and dignified way. . In my opinion, the meaning of life should not be just life itself, and what people pursue in life is not just "living". If living means desperate struggle and endurance, why can't this option be given up? Rather than seeing my mother full of pipes at the end of her life, "never give up" under the maintenance of drugs and instruments, and finally die at a certain moment of struggle, I would rather see her be able to do her own thing. Choose, leave the world when you're ready.
If euthanasia was legal, if someone asked me if I would euthanize my mother, I would say, "If she does, then I support it." Jack and I came up with the idea of euthanasia for similar reasons: we saw the mother in pain. look. That image of pain, despair, and struggle weighs heavily on our lives. I think I understand Jack. As a viewer and a reader of stories, I cannot always stand outside the films and stories, because it affects too much of my true feelings. I feel sorry for Jack. I think that such a benevolent doctor and a pioneer with a sense of mission, even if his support for euthanasia is a bit extreme, it may deserve a better ending.
2.
In my opinion, Jack's trial and failure is the direct cause of his tragic end. However, with his character, he made such a choice, and it seemed inevitable that he would end up having such an ending.
Jack is a paranoid, stubborn person. This is evident in the episodes where he quarrelled with his sister Margo, aggressively criticized the judge in court, and went on a 19-day hunger strike in prison in protest. Such a character destined Jack to become a radical on the issue of euthanasia: he did not listen to the advice of lawyer Feige, and had the idea of trying the law and challenging the authority. He deliberately published a video of himself performing active euthanasia on a patient in the media, and was sued and brought to the Supreme Court. He wants to give it a go: If he wins, he can ask for legislation to legalize euthanasia.
In addition, Jack lives in a very lonely world and is a very closed person who is not used to sharing and communicating. Jack was never married, had few friends, and most of his colleagues thought he was a lunatic pathologist. In the film, his friend and supporter Janet encourages him to open his heart several times, and only at the end, when Janet talks to him for the last time before being euthanized, does he open up and tell her what happened to her when she saw her mother suffer from illness. The sense of hopelessness, loneliness, and helplessness experienced. And it is precisely his self-enclosed character that he is not good at and does not want to win supporters. The tenth anniversary party of Time magazine was originally a great one. He could have made friends with famous people from all walks of life who attended the party. He could also use the lens of the media to promote his ideas and call on more people to pay attention to euthanasia. When facing the light reporter, he just chose to be silent and avoid.
Jack is also a conceited person. When Feige's lawyer persuaded him, he always emphasized that "I am not afraid of anything because I am right". He completely considered a legal issue with the thinking of a doctor, attempted to gamble a victory at the expense of himself, and wanted to leave euthanasia to the public's judgment. In short, he is challenging the law as a layman of the law. As the so-called "ignorant is fearless", Jack's conceit in front of the law is precisely due to his ignorance of the law. Later, Jack even abandoned Feige's lawyer who disagreed with his own views, threatening to defend himself and make a statement to the jury in his own way. Since he does not understand the law and chooses to fight alone, he will inevitably find himself in a situation of isolation and helplessness in court.
Apart from being a doctor, Jack is also a painter, writer and musician. There are clips of Jack opening an exhibition in the film. Most of his paintings depict war, pain, and are very abstract, full of horror, distortion, and grotesque elements. This style of painting was influenced by his childhood experiences. Jack's grandparents died in the Armenian genocide, and his parents were Armenian refugees. As a teenager, Jack was deeply and painfully impressed by his parents' accounts of the genocide. The artwork is the projection of Jack's inner impression of genocide, war, etc. It can be said that those works express his impressions and perceptions of pain and sin. That's why Jack was so distressed and angry when the prosecution compared euthanasia to genocide - he couldn't accept that his well-intentioned medical care was compared to the most horrific and vicious kind of genocide. connect. As a result, Jack was furious in the courtroom, roaring and questioning the other party: "How dare you compare euthanasia with genocide! How dare you!" Jack's rage at the final trial was considered a contempt of court, and this behavior was also to a certain extent Influenced the judge's final sentencing.
The final trial is arguably the most exciting part of the film. Previously, the prosecution had charged Jack with assisted suicide, but Jack was acquitted. Before this trial, the prosecution changed its strategy and dropped the assisted suicide charge against Jack, and charged with murder.
Why did the prosecution change its strategy before the trial and switch to accusing Jack of murder? Because in assisted suicide, this behavior is related to the suicide and the facilitator, so as the family members of the suicide, they are regarded as "informers" and can testify in court. As the jury hears their testimony and learns how distressed the patient is, it develops empathy and understanding of Jack's behavior, adding emotional judgment to the final conviction and more likely to find him innocent. When the crime turned into murder, this act was only related to Jack, and the family members of the euthanized patients could no longer testify for him as "informers", and there was no mercy in the court. As the lawyer Feige said in the film: "This is an unfair trial." Jack did not understand the law, and the lawyers he hired were not very good. Had Jack's defense attorney been Feige, the outcome might have been different. Feige told Jack's lawyer: When the judge refused the victim's family to testify, he should have told the judge that the victim's family witnessed the "murder" process, so that they became "informers" and the judge could not deny them to testify in court. ask. But the lawyer didn't think of this at the time, and he missed a great opportunity in vain. It has to be said that the conversion of such accusations is really a clever move.
The change of charge here is rhetorical: in the face of the same act of Jack assisting a patient to commit suicide, in other words, the law can be subtly used to different effects. "Scent of a Woman" also stars Al Pacino. The difference is that in "Scent of a Woman", Frank, played by Al Pacino, is the embodiment of rhetoric. He defends Charles eloquently in the final "trial"-like part, allowing him to be exempted from punishment. In "Death Doctor", he played a doctor who didn't understand the law. He was only brave and would not defend himself in front of the law.
The judge's judgment on Jack is the finishing touch of the whole film: "You came here to fight for the last time, but you chose the wrong place. Our country can accommodate a hundred opinions because we have adopted civilized, non-violent means. 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, complain to the media, and petition the people, but you can never go beyond the boundaries of the law, you can't violate the law, and you can't Playing the law with applause. This trial is not about that controversy, it's about you, you defied and challenged the authority of the law and the Supreme Court. The trial is about your disregard for the law, for the one who lives and thrives by the power of the law Society." Although he felt pity or unfairness for Jack, he had to admit that such a punishment was reasonable. Although Jack's previous push for euthanasia was controversial, it was not the reason why he was ultimately sentenced to prison. What the law ultimately punishes is his contempt for the law.
Jack thought that the purpose of his coming to the Supreme Court was to bring euthanasia into the public eye again, and he wanted to bring the issue of euthanasia, a medical ethics, to the public for discussion. He thinks that his starting point is good, so he is right and just, but he does not know that on such a controversial issue, the law is not a confrontation between right and wrong, justice and evil, but a contest between rhetoric and rhetoric. In this sense, Jack's thinking and legal thinking are "misplaced". This kind of dislocation in thinking is essentially the dislocation between the thinking of a doctor and the thinking of law that Jack has as a doctor.
3.
Jack and other friends talked about his plans to provide medical relief for patients. A friend who was also a doctor thought his idea was absurd and said to him, "I'm a doctor, do you want me to be exiled? Doctors shouldn't leave the decision of death to the patient." The key question here is: life or death Who has the right to die?
In the film, the first patient Jack euthanized was an Alzheimer's patient. She lived in the fear and pain of oblivion, so she pleaded for euthanasia. But in fact, she still has a long time to survive, and she also has a certain ability to take care of herself. Sister Margo told Jack that she was not a qualified candidate. If euthanasia was implemented, there must be a lot of critical and negative reports on Jack in the media community. And Jack said: "But she has such power. I don't care what others think, my patient's feelings are the most important." Jack just cares and cares for his patients as a doctor.
Like other people who support euthanasia, Jack also believes that the right to life is in the hands of individuals, and everyone has the right to dispose of his own life; individuals are not obliged to live for others, but enjoy the freedom to die. From a legal point of view, a person should be responsible for his own life, so pure self-harm that occurs within one's own power cannot be considered unlawful. According to the concept of freedom to dispose of one's legal interests at will, this is a reasonable explanation.
However, such a claim would bring about a number of legal contradictions. “Criminal law protects the right of individuals to make their own decisions. In criminal cases, the violation of the will of the victim is the element that constitutes these crimes, and the legal interest of life is special. Once it is abandoned, it means that the individual will lose all values and rights including the right to make their own decisions. ”, so, in this sense, it contradicts the purpose of criminal law to protect its own decision-making power. If the free disposal of life is legally recognized as an individual's right, then preventing others from committing suicide becomes a violation of the rights of others. At this time, if the right to life of the suicide person faces an illegal violation, he can make a legitimate defense and cause damage to the person who prevents him from committing suicide without having to bear criminal responsibility; at the same time, the person who successfully prevents others from committing suicide should bear criminal responsibility instead. This is very bad for people who help suicide. Such a law would go against the values promoted by a healthy society, which emphasizes cherishing life, not giving up life at will, and stopping and helping suicide. In addition, it makes it "legal" to encourage and instigate others to give up their lives, which violates social ethical norms. It can be seen from the above analysis that once euthanasia is recognized by the law, it means that the legality of suicide is recognized, and when this legality is extended to groups other than terminally ill patients who feel pain and want to give up their lives, It will bring harm and injustice to those who are also well-meaning in helping suicide victims.
Differences in legal and medical thinking are the most important and essential reasons for Jack's eventual tragedy. Jack's original intention is good, and so is the law's original intention. However, in the world there is not only a contest between good and evil, but also a confrontation between good and good. Just as on the issue of euthanasia, kindness from different angles pulls each other, bringing about irreconcilable contradictions. Did Jack notice these legal issues? Perhaps he had heard such an objection too. But, as a doctor, he puts the patient's feelings above everything else. That is to say, from the perspective of law and medicine, the focus on the issue of "suicide" is different, and the debate on euthanasia between the two is not carried out on the same discourse platform.
Medicine focuses on a limited field, emphasizing caring for the patient's feelings, and emphasizing the full protection of human dignity and the value of life. It was originally born with an expression of human ailment and a desire to alleviate that affliction. "Healing the wounded" is one of the means to relieve suffering, so it should be understood as a means of medicine to achieve its purpose, rather than the purpose of medicine itself. If "rescue the wounded" becomes the purpose of medicine, then although the medical process brings a heavy financial burden to the family and causes physical harm and even pain to the patient, things that go against the original intention of medicine should be accepted. From the medical point of view, euthanasia is an unconventional means to achieve an end, and it is a method to reconcile the contradiction between conventional means and the original intention of medicine.
And law is a kind of "balanced art", not a judgment indicator that punishes evil and promotes good, it needs to focus on a broader field, and needs to consider the logic applicable in a specific field Whether the same applies to other levels of society also needs to consider whether the interests of all parties can be balanced to the greatest extent in judicial practice. The legalization of euthanasia is especially morally and legally justifiable, but when based on reality, rashly legalizing euthanasia implies weakening the absolute protection of the right to life by the law, and even providing legal excuses for legal murder, which are all faced by the law. Issues that must be considered in euthanasia.
4.
The story in the film takes place in the United States. Many of the reasons why the masses oppose Jack are religious reasons. They believe that doctors should not "disobey the will of God" and leave the decision of life and death to the patient. Here, let’s first discuss the nature of disease and medicine. The author agrees with the point of view that: “Disease is essentially an imbalance of the human system. Balance is relative, while imbalance is absolute. The purpose of medicine is to intervene in the imbalance of the human body. It is a natural process to restore people to a relatively balanced state.” Medicine itself is already a confrontation and game against nature, and from a religious perspective, it is a disobedience to God’s will. Treatment is achieved by "defying God", so on the issue of euthanasia, doctors believe that doctors defy God and oppose it, and at the same time accept medicine, a contradiction is formed
If in the United States, many people oppose euthanasia for religious reasons, what are the specific reasons why people oppose the legalization of euthanasia in China, a non-religious country? In fact, in the face of legalization of euthanasia, whether it is the United States or China, in addition to religious issues, there are many practical hidden dangers.
First of all, euthanasia is potentially used by very few people with bad morals as an excuse to avoid fulfilling obligations such as treatment and care. The legalization of euthanasia first requires a high level of social morality and spiritual civilization as a guarantee. Secondly, euthanasia needs the support of the social medical and health and welfare security system. Only after all the treatment, medical treatment and care can be used to relieve the pain of the patient and prolong the life, euthanasia can be considered. Although the United States already has a developed medical level, it does not have a complete medical insurance system, and many people cannot afford the high medical expenses. Many Americans will worry that once euthanasia is legalized, it will be their only affordable medical option. In China, except for minority groups who enjoy public medical care and medical insurance, ordinary workers, farmers, unemployed people, and socially disadvantaged groups, who make up the majority of the society, are in a state of semi-self-paying or self-paying. If this reality is not taken into account, and from the humanitarian perspective of individual cases, legalizing euthanasia through legislation will shirk the responsibility of the state and society for medical treatment and treatment. This is actually inhumane to the value and dignity of human life.
Therefore, under the circumstance that there is no guarantee that euthanasia will not be abused, we should maintain a prudent and rational attitude towards the legalization of euthanasia.
Since the legalization of euthanasia touches on many complex practical issues, more and more people advocate replacing euthanasia with end-of-life care similar to euthanasia. Hospice care refers to: "Hospice care is a kind of service measure that implements humanitarianism in an all-round way to the dying patients, and it is to enable the dying patients to receive the same enthusiastic care and care in the final process of life, feel the warmth of the world, and reflect the life. The value of life, the meaning of life, and the dignity of life." It can be seen that both hospice and euthanasia emphasize the value and dignity of life.
But, while similar, hospice cannot fully solve the problem that euthanasia is trying to solve. In general, the problem of hospice care is that one is expensive and the other is less. "Hospice care requires expertise, and pain-relieving drugs are expensive, making it expensive to maintain hospice hospitals. In addition, hospice care facilities are mostly located in big cities, and are almost blank for townships and villages."
Therefore, exactly how hospice and euthanasia are legally arranged remains an open question.
5.
On the issue of euthanasia, the goals of law and medicine are similar. Both want to protect the value of individual life and maintain the dignity of life. However, the difference in thinking between the two has created a "confrontation between good and good". Knowing the difference in thinking between the two, it is possible to understand Jack's claim and understand why he is legally "ununderstood".
There is a small detail in the film that particularly touched me: when Jack euthanized a patient for the first time, the patient was lying on the bed and told that his gardener would come to their house on Thursday to plant marigolds. The bright marigolds will surround her hut. Jack listened quietly to her about these trivial beauty, and then gently told her that now he would not be angry if she went back on it, and he told her that he would respect any choice she made. In front of the patient, Jack seems to have changed a person, he is no longer a paranoid, withdrawn, stubborn strange old man, he suddenly became kind and gentle. I think this is what a good doctor shows, the deep love and respect for the patient.
The original title of the film translates to "You Don't Know Jack". After watching the movie, I'm not sure if I really understand him, but I want to talk about what I understand about him--
The society has mixed opinions on Dr. Jack Kevorkian, but it seems to me that we need more "good doctors" like him: like him, respecting and caring for patients, empathizing with patients' feelings, and taking their concerns as their own concerns.
In my country, euthanasia is currently difficult to legalize, and hospice care as a similar alternative also faces many problems. When medicine is powerless, "how to minimize their suffering and give them dignity and value" is a question that every medical practitioner needs to think about. Healthcare workers need to do what they can to partially compensate for the immaturity of euthanasia and end-of-life care with respect and love. In other words, the "legalization of euthanasia" not only requires a high level of spiritual civilization and morality in the society, but also requires us to have developed medical conditions and a matching medical security system, but also requires medical practitioners' professional quality and professional ethics. The level puts forward higher requirements.
For euthanasia, the whole society needs to have a continuous, clear and rational discussion. Although Jack's overly aggressive attitude towards euthanasia ultimately resulted in punishment for him, we should not deny the value of his efforts: every major change in the world requires many brave men with a sense of purpose and a rebellious spirit like him. People push little by little.
It is hoped that one day, law and medicine will be able to conditionally turn the "confrontation between goodness and goodness" into a "combination of goodness and goodness" on the issue of euthanasia, so as to solve the problems in medical humanities.
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
