Whose Life Essay
In her argument with Dr. Emerson, Dr. Scott tries to prove that Ken’s “subjective decision may be more valid” as “only he knows more about how he feels. ” I find Dr. Emerson’s answer to this argument almost shocking: “It makes no difference. His knowledge isn’t based on experience of a hundred such cases,” he states. It is not surprising that Ken tries to distance himself from Dr. Emerson as he sees the latter as one of the most powerful opponents to his plan. Harrison refers to Him as God: “[Dr. Emerson] will sweep in here like Zeus from Olympus, with his attendant nymphs and swains.
” Nymphs and swains imply the others who are subservient to Dr. Emerson. It sounds like a fair comparison: Dr. Emerson and most of his medical staff are threatening, invincible and hold the power of life and death over him. Ken uses sarcastic expressions such as “the monstrous regiment” and “the optimism industry” which classes Dr. Emerson and his viewpoint as the opposition. Doctor Scott supports Ken’s decision convinced by his calm, rational, and intelligent firmness. However, Dr. Scott also expresses her distress with Ken’s choice; she feels that Ken has a brilliant mind and she does not want it destroyed: “He’s so…
bright… intelligent… He says he wants to die. ” “Many patients say that. ” “I know that Sister, but he means it. It’s just a calm, rational decision. ” Ken seems to be different in her eyes because she sees he is not just another depressed patient, he knows exactly how his life is going to be from now on and refuses to accept it in this form. This is something that Ken desperately desires and reflects that by talking more openly and with more friendly affection to her than to Dr. Emerson. “It’ s (heart) broken, broken in two.
But each part carries on bravely yearning for a woman in a white coat,” he confesses drolly to Dr. Scott, which differs drastically from his abrupt, sarcastic tone with strictly professional Dr. Emerson. As we can see, Clark explores the theme of his play in deep contrasts of characters, attitudes and actions, which makes the play especially engaging for the audience. The tone of the play is not over-emotional, which I think can be explained by the fact that the central argument is not over the right to die, but more – over the right to choose. Harrison tries to point out what he is actually in pursuit of: “My Lord, I am not asking anyone to kill me.
I am only asking to be discharged from this hospital. ” Ken wants to be free from his frustrating dependence on others and to have the right to make decisions about his own life and death. The play exposes more the legal and moral aspects of the situation than the sentimental viewpoint on the matter. I think this creates an additional dramatic effect, which helps the author to maintain the interest of the audience, as it gives audience a chance to make their own conclusions on the objective problem brought up by Brian Clark. In my opinion, “Whose Life is it Anyway?
“By Brian Clark is very thought provoking as it gives audience an opportunity to test their attitudes toward life, death, and the significant choices that must be made in regard to both. I think what is significant about the play is that it ends before the actual ending, i. e. before the judge actually announces his verdict, which to a point is immaterial. I think it is not the verdict that matters in this play, but making the audience think about the issues. With the development of medical technology, people can now have a better quality of life.
Moreover, many lives, which normally would not survive without the advance in medical treatment, can now be artificially prolonged. The central character Ken Harrison, has met this situation. Nevertheless, I think it is cruel to ask him to face this life if he does not desire to. He can no longer sculpt, run, move, kiss, or have any form of sexual fulfilment. Obviously, his normal life has drifted away. Should his state really be classified as life? Many people might disagree with the fact he is already dead.
Certainly, he is medically alive, but spiritually, can he really be classified as such? I think to sustain people’s lives, just because the technology is available, is unacceptable under certain circumstances. It is the individual patient who must make a decision about whether to keep himself alive: “What is the point of prolonging a person’s biological life if it is obtained at the cost of a serious assault on that person’s liberty? There is probably no simple answer for this question. Any patient’s decision should be respected, not based on the fact of all available technologies.
“4 Finally, the play offers a fascinating study of some uses of humour in medical situations and many opportunities to discuss healer-patient relationships. 1 Bernardo L. , 2002, “Should You Be Kept Alive No Mater What? “, Lewes: Falmer Press, p. 16 2 Robert, H. , Welsh, R. “A Christian Response To Euthanasia” Online. Available from: http://www. u-turn. net/3-3/euthan2. html 3 Saffell, M. Review of “Whose Life Is It Anyway? ” Online. Available from: http://www. next-stage. co. uk/whose_life_-_bath_review. htm 4 Doyle, R. N. “ASSISTED SUICIDE http://www.all.org