Essay On The Movie “You Don’T Know Jack”

0 / 5. 0

Essay on the movie "You don’t know Jack"

Two concepts that have undoubtedly raised great controversy and debate among the community both academic, political, legal and civil, is the issue of life and death in all its variants. One of the most discussed issues about these issues is the acceptance or not of euthanasia or good death, based on the different conceptions that have been created in the history of the meaning of human life. The discussion about the subject has become popular, because the patient’s autonomy is currently defended in terms of making decisions about his medical treatments, especially when they suffer from a terminal disease.

Undoubtedly, euthanasia is an issue that contains deep discussions, mainly in the world’s political and legal community, as well as with respect to the ethical position that is adopted in relation to this practice. Worldly there are different positions on this matter, however, it seems that discussions tend towards the decriminalization of medically assisted euthanasia or suicide, thanks to the autonomy of each patient to make their own decisions in relation to their medical treatment.

To continue with this idea, you will be based on the movie "You do not know Jack", a film that tells the story of Jack Kevorkian, a 61 -year -old retiree doctor who fights to legalize euthanasia. Seeing the suffering of his sick mother inspires him to study on tanatology, a discipline that is in charge of medical knowledge related to death by building the Mercitron machine, which can help people to perform assisted suicide by administering a series of substances that would makeof death something brief and without pain, because he cannot manage chemicals directly because it would be illegal, it would be seen as a murder. Thus, I would like to address this film from an exhibition vision, mainly addressing the question, what are the limits of euthanasia? While the position taken by some in the film as a doctor who dignifies the death of their patients. 

It seems correct to make the legitimacy of euthanasia plausible in certain cases of physical or mental illness in which it can be said that "life seriously", which deserves to be lived, has ended. The decision to voluntarily end one’s life in these cases the critical interests of the subject. These are interests that concern the life of the individual taken as a whole and by virtue of which the individual is interested not only in living in a certain way, but also in dying in a way according to his personal life project. Such critical interests have some priority over experience of experience, such as the end of a work with the rest of the plot, as Dworkin sees. 

The conservative attitude of rejection of euthanasia constitutes a criticism of the attack against the holiness of human life, referring to the intrinsic value of holiness and inviolability of human life in general. However, it seems that it is rather a genuine discussion of principles, in which radically different conceptions are expressed and, essentially, inconcilable, about the treatment that a democratic and respectful society of life and individual rights and individual rightsthat they must grant all forms of human life.

In effect, someone lacking religious convictions, and who does not even subscribe to the moral idea that life is an indispensable good and does not mere individual property, can consider suicide as something unfortunate and painful, but will not necessarily subscribe the idea thatconstitutes a crime that must be prohibited. You can argue against each one owner of doing what she wants with her life. 

However, I consider that it is not the same to help die or kill yourself with the help of another, than to refuse to use the media that would allow temporarily and artificially preventing the natural expiration of life. So, I do not agree with the idea of preferring death for the fear of the natural history of the disease. As in the case of Mrs. Janet Atkins who suffered from Alzheimer’s. In this case I think it was a very precipitated action since Mrs. Atkins could last a little more time in a state of considerable consciousness enjoying his family and a good lifestyle.

Throughout the film, it is observed how it is constantly reflected on the autonomy of the individual and justice behind the assisted act of euthanasia by DR. Jack, because every thought revolves around these considerations. 

Autonomy is the principle that considers the degree of intentionality of the acts, their understanding and the absence of coercions or limitations of people as moral agents capable of deciding in an informed manner.

This principle is explained throughout the film when each patient in each case was a victim of their suffering, pain and agony of their medical condition, in addition to a political and medical system that denied them the possibility of deciding on a solid basis the fact of the end ofwith an unworthy life. All who the protagonist attends (except for the previously exposed case) are very aware of their decision and from the ethical point of view there is no doubt when it is empathetic that you cannot live under those conditions and that if people arepsychologically capable should laws around the world to deliver the opportunity to die with dignity.

It is difficult to debate when establishing the limits of autonomy in terms of death because it has always prioritized to maintain life. The doctor. Death (as the protagonist is nicknamed) also sees his autonomy when he see their real possibility of exercising medicine in terms of the discipline of tanatology, assisted suicide and active euthanasia and being able to perform respectful interventions, worthy aroundProcess of dying, because there is a whole society structured with laws built with solid pillars that support only life, but paradoxically, they agree to finish it in one of the most inhum and apathetic ways possible: letting the terminal patients starve to death.

With the above, I also believe that this component of autonomy can be applied to the doctor who would eventually practice the act of euthanasia, since moral convictions or in cases of emotional or psychological weakness could allow the doctor to object to aware and not end the life ofa patient. In other cases, having greater medical and psychological studies of the patient, you can also refuse to practice euthanasia by restricting this principle of autonomy, since it can be a severe depression picture that requires other treatments. 

It could be legally said that damage was made when active euthanasia was performed in Tom and helped suicide so many. On the other hand, society is producing damage by not being able to deliver a quality of life to this member who suffers from an irreversible medical condition, letting someone suffer from pain is not also damaging?

From the point of view of justice, Jack struggles throughout the plot and exposes openly in every dialogue in which he refers to how assisted death should be, it is exposed in each lawyer’s defense when it is said that it is legal, but not commit suicide under the medical conditions of each case reported in the film. What is just then?, where is the balanced distributive justice based on the sense and end of social cooperation. 

Maybe one could talk about compassion, understood as perceiving the suffering of others. The doctor. Jack expresses his compassion when he is able to understand each person and perceive his suffering because he has already lived it. In addition, it is always active in this regard, either by attending them in the process of dying or fighting for each one before the law. However, it seems paradoxical that when he attends a patient without sufficient gas supplies and also trying to save, it seems that he was no longer being so compassionate but rather I was thinking about it trying to meet his goals at all costs at all costs.

Perhaps the doctor had the necessary technical knowledge, but on the side of human competences I do not know if he would have everything necessary because what has already been said, although his cause is understandable in many cases, his professionalism can be questioned. It is true that sometimes the circumstances played against, despite this, was it really necessary to perform the procedure if all the necessary supplies were not had? Was it necessary to make public the video that showed the active euthanasia of Tom?, It can be argued that he lacked his professional ethics exposing Tom’s death, he lacked the human when he placed that plastic box on the head of that patient and additionally caused him pain by burning him with gas, he showed a lot of his lack of communicational competence forbe a spokesman and thus achieve step by step what I wanted just for everyone.

 

To conclude the process of dying with dignity is an issue in which a lot to solve. It is still observed how death every day is still unworthy, in medical practices it is observed how contact with health professionals and family members are ignored for a matter of fear of the finitude of life.

I dare to say that I am in favor of euthanasia in cases that really, because when the resources are exhausted, the medical profession is frustrated because you can no longer take care of and help more compassion for more compassion that professionals possess.

The theme of euthanasia is very delicate since it is rooted in various ethical and moral principles. Being a controversy, each of us has a different and very respectable opinion.

The main argument in favor of decriminalization and legalization of euthanasia is based on the self-determination of free citizens. In a modern society in which there is diversity of opinions on moral issues, laws should not prevent the inhabitants of a certain country from deciding when they consider that their life is already meaning and, therefore, the possibility of choosing the moment ofput an end. It is not about imposing anything on anyone, but to allow each one to choose according to their conscience;And therefore, that those who arrive at a precarious state of health (or even for other reasons) want to end their lives, have the right to do so.

Thus, the argument seems quite reasonable. 

However, admitting a "right to die" at a certain moment, and in a certain way, means demandAssisted suicide, other people are being involved together with the interested party;In this case, generally, from the medical field. There is therefore a logical and legal leap of remarkable importance. While it is true that – in the field of public ethics – the individual has freedom to do what he wants with his life, provided he does not go against the common good of society (which opens the question of how to assess suicide withRegarding that common good), he has no right to have another citizen end his own life, to another citizen commits a homicide, even at the request of the interested party. 

In addition, the legal fact of admitting some homicide cases would open a gap in the principle of inviolability of the innocent subject, which has been achieved in modern societies.

Together with self-determination, piety is usually mentioned as an argument in favor of euthanasia. But also in this case it is a problematic reasoning. 

Piedad and compassion lead to care, to comfort, encourage the one who suffers ("cum-passio" suffer with the other, according to the etymology of the term compassion), but cannot justify the end of the life of the one who suffers. In not a few writings of bioethics, there are situations in which it is explained that for the patient it would be better to be dead ("Better off death" is the expression that has been consolidated in English literature). However, from a philosophical point of view, which is what should adopt the writings of bioethics, it is a fallacious argument, because it is not possible to justify such a statement: who can ensure through philosophical reasoning that death ispreferable to a certain type of life? On the other hand, "sweet death" does not exist: all death is traumatic. It can be advanced, you can try to camouflage, but its strong anthropological connotation cannot be eliminated.

The main argument against decriminalization (or legalization) of euthanasia is the aforementioned criterion of the inviolability of human life. A society should not allow a category of people to decide on the life or death of others, due to many conditions that are foreseen to avoid abuse. You could say that doctors (and patients) make life and death decisions every day, but it is very different to decide when to stop fighting the disease, to choose an action to end another person’s life, no matter how muchSick as it is.

There are also many authors who use the argument of the “slippery slope”, which maintains that if euthanasia is legally approved for some extreme cases, other cases that are outside those provided by those planned bythe law. The experience of the Dutch law, which saw a first regulation in 1993, and was finally approved in 2002 (Verification Law of the termination of life at assisted request and suicide) is a good example of the argument. The first regulation provided for the application of euthanasia only to those patients who voluntarily asked it (consistently and repeated), will be in a terminal situation and suffer pains that were considered insufferable. 

In a few years, it has been observed how the three conditions have been dismissed: repeated petition from competent non -depressed patients, to the acceptance of psychic patients, of others who could not express their will, or even those who had rejected it;And the same happened with the terminal condition of the disease and with insufferable pains. It is not about drawing apocalyptic panoramas, as they sometimes present, especially to banal the argument and take strength. It is simply to assume what has meant to open the door to euthanasia in a specific legal system.

Another reason against the decriminalization of euthanasia is what we could call "anti -solid argument". Together with the thinning of the medical-patient relationship, the social possibility of euthanasia loads the chronic patient, not only terminal, with a weight that is sometimes too large. The possibility of asking for euthanasia, and ceasing to be a burden for the family and for the community in general, is the origin of a suffering for the patient that society should avoid. Perhaps there are a few cases of people who, even receiving adequate palliative care, still wanting to end their lives. But if euthanasia is allowed to those few people, there will be many others that will be unprotected, and those that will have to justify why they want to continue being a weight for others. The serious patient the last thing is a load of this type.

The moment of death is a unique and definitive moment. The family, the health field, the society in general, should facilitate that this moment takes place in the most serene possible way, but without forgetting that it is always something that escapes its domain, something mysterious and fascinating. 

Free Essay On The Movie “You Don’T Know Jack” Essay Sample

Related samples

Zika virus: Transmission form Introduction The Zika virus belongs to the Flaviviradae family, was found for the first time in a monkey called Rhesus febrile and in...

Zika virus: cases and prevention Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) has confirmed that Zika is a virus caused through the mosquito bite which is...

Zeus The King of Greek mythology Introduction Zeus is the Olympic God of heaven and thunder, the king of all other gods and men and, consequently, the main figure...

Zeus's punishment to Prometheus Introduction Prometheus, punished by Zeus Prometheus, punished by Zeus. Prometheus is a ‘cousin’ of Zeus. He is the son of the...

Comments

Leave feedback

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *