Whose Life is it anyway?
Summary of Plot
The film, ‘whose life is it anyway’ is a clear demonstration of the types of medical dilemmas which face healthcare practitioners on a day-to-day basis. It is starred by Ken Harrison who was involved in an accident and had to be admitted to hospital. Owing to his deteriorated quadriplegic condition, he sued to be allowed to end his life. The premise for this position was the fact that he could no longer pursue his passion of creating art and he could not make love. His normal existence and style of life had been tampered with and there was no taste in life any more. This lawsuit elicited controversial reactions from the medical world and the society as a whole. In the end, the ultimate decision from the courts was that a patient had a moral, ethical, and legal right to die according to the circumstances presented in court.
This film provides a highlight and a reflection of the salient features of rights and entitlements of patients who are trying to access healthcare. As such, it brings out the issues of beneficence, autonomy, veracity, fidelity, and justice from this perspective. This paper intends to discuss all these principles in relation to the manner in which they were brought out in the film and analyze whether the film effectively touched on critical facts associated with these principles.
Beneficence
The film cast the starring Ken Harrison to be at all times static because of the paralysis and in deep pain. The quadriplegic condition had deprived him of all sorts of enjoyment in life. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the doctors to recommend the most beneficial medical treatment or advice at that point in time. This proposition would at the same time factor in the non-malfeasance principle; such that while purporting to help the patient, they do not proceed to cause him immeasurable harm.
After being involved in the accident, Ken became a Quadrupled paraplegic. The prognosis was that he could never walk again and at the same time, he could never use his arms and hands. The doctors also examined his situation and found out that he was suffering from depression, which had affected his thinking. Therefore, presented with the question of whether to allow Ken end his life, they had an obligation of making a decision that not only helps him but also does not cause him pain.
One option here was to make the most aggressive decision, which they actually did. They opted to recommend that Ken could not access Euthanasia because his condition was not terminal enough to warrant such an extreme measure. One of the probable consequences of this decision is that letting Ken Harrison go home in that condition would actually culminate in more depression because he clearly had nothing else to do with his life. On the other hand, the patient gave the doctors an option of making their work easier by agreeing to take his life. This would imply that the patient’s life ends regardless of any prospects ahead. Instead, they would have relieved him of the feeling of self-hate and depression. The incapacitation had overwhelmed him and in my opinion, they would have budged in at this time. From a utilitarian perspective, this would have been the best decision because it bears the greatest common good with it.
Autonomy
The issue of patient autonomy can also be clearly depicted from the film. The later stages of the film depict a tussle between the opinions of the patient and those of the doctors attending to him. On his part, Ken Harrison simply wanted to die. He was devastated by the fact that he was immobile and totally incapacitated. He also decried the fact that he could not make his artwork again let alone making love. While examining his condition and claims the doctors based on his condition to thwart his desires. The doctors held the position that Ken did not have decisional capacity given that he was suffering from depression and that he was just bitter with the condition he was in. there were no advance directives from any quarters according to the film. However, Dr. Emerson and Dr. Scott had settled early on the decision not to let Ken end his life. The only surrogate decision maker who could make a decision for Ken independently from the adverse parties was his girlfriend, Pat. Even though she was sad, she expressed opposition to the doctors’ position.
The last scenes of the film best illustrate the issue of paternalism in healthcare practice. Paternalism is a term used to refer to the practice of exercising dominance over another person. Ideally, in the previous years, opinions given by clinicians were taken to be the gospel truth and could not be challenged at any point by patients or other persons of interest. This is because of the inordinate trust, which was bestowed in medical practitioners. However, recent trends indicate that a patient also has a right to express their opinion about the whether they want treatment or not and what kind of treatment to be administered. In order to analyze the justification of paternalism with respect to this film, we will take a closer look at a raft of considerations.
The first question regards the magnanimity of harm if no decision would have been taken or if the decision of the doctors to bar Ken from pursuing euthanasia would stand. To start with, prevention of euthanasia would explicitly mean that Ken was to be confined at home for the rest of his life. He did not have the ability to work anymore. He would live in this world for a number of years knowing that he cannot found a family, neither can he marry. He would have taken so long to get over the depression and all this time would have been spent in self-hate. Therefore, considering the position of doctors, the threats of harm was clearly overwhelming.
Secondly, the implications of a total ignorance of the situation also have to be canvassed. It is a good thing that at least Dr. Emerson tried to make Ken feel happy by being so close to him. The medical department also took plausible measures to inject positivity in the patient’s system. Ignoring the whole situation would have meant that Ken does not get any therapeutic attention and at the same time he does not access the right to have euthanasia performed on him. That would be also a great disservice to the patient.
The third facet of assessing paternalism entails looking at whether the treatment was reasonable. The treatment process undertaken by the doctors was reasonable to the extent that it was generally help the patient to become mentally strong. It was also not harmful in any way because it was purely therapeutic. Nonetheless, this treatment would not have been sufficient to address the patient’s future tribulations, which would leave with him for the rest of his life.
Finally, we have to consider whether there was potential for a future agreement. In this context, the setting of the film indicated just a short period of turmoil for the patient. There was no chance of a future agreement just because these were the most tumultuous moments in the patient’s life and thus a later agreement would have been clearly superfluous. Looking at all these factors, it can be settled that there were overwhelming aspects of paternalism in this film because the best interests of the patient were not considered.
Fidelity
The doctors in the film were at all times protective of the patient. They promised Ken repeatedly that he was going to get better. They also devised ways of amusing him to distract him from his depression. It cannot be said though that they stood with him because they did not heed to his interests. The two firmly stood with the conservative conception of not taking away life even when the patient was in the most dejected state. This stance cannot be faulted though because they were just conforming to the legal statutes as well as their own personal convictions.
Veracity
In all scenes of this film, truth was displayed for all parties to make their judgement of the situation. The doctors were frank enough to inform the patient that he would no longer walk or use his hands again. The same information was also shared with the surrogate, Ken’s girlfriend. The only time the doctors seemed to slightly mislead the patient was when they suggested that he would be okay again even without mobility. Therapeutic healing starts with the patient’s mindset and emotional inclinations. Much as the doctors had tried to have Ken move on from that adversity, they also understood that their efforts had been fruitless for quite a while now. Therefore, adducing evidence in court that he would still be okay was a great travesty and it had the propensity of having the patient live with a troubled mindset for the rest of his life.
Justice
The question of justice in issues of euthanasia bears a very complex meaning and implications. Nevertheless, basically, it can just be reduced to mean what is fair. Ken’s lawyer, Carter Hill was even reluctant to represent him because this was a novel case in which he would be imploring the court to render a death sentence. The judge considered the amount of resources that would have been used to treat Ken for an unprecedented period as well as the availability of the funds and any other persons who would have otherwise benefited from the resources. Then there was the question of the community’s conception on the issues of euthanasia. Ideally, no person should hold the key to ending their life, but there are instances when one’s life is burdensome to him. This coupled with the psychiatrist examination detailing the condition of Ken Harrison was enough for the Judge to rule that he had the legal capacity to decide whether his life should end or not.
References
Badham, J. (Director). (1990). Whose life is it Anyway? [Motion Picture].
