Monday, December 25, 2006

Short Review of 'Children of Men'

Ever wonder why are there so many dystopic films these days? Well, i thought that these films had their renessaince long ago ('Blade Runner', the 'Alien' series, Mad Max or '12 Monkeys'), but luckily they revived with '28 days later ' and, the freshest piece, 'The Children of Men'(based on P.D.James's novel).
Clive Owen (you know him from 'Sin City' - you know the guy with red Converse shoes)- lives his seemingly simple life in world where there have not been a single newborn's crying for 27 years. His friend Jasper Palmer (Michael Caine) lies in a remote place, far from London. He and his disabled wife live in remote woods, in perfect tranquility. I could not observe that Jasper really looks like the elder John Lennon - not to mention his attitude towards peace and marijuana. Well, it is not the only mark of British popular culture.When Theo (Owen) and Patrick (Charlie Hunnam) are having a conversation, we cannot help noticing the flying pig above London, which obviously refers to Pink Floyd's Animal album.
Anyway, Theo gets a mission to do from his ex-wife, Julian Moore to help a pregnant fuggee get on boat, called Tomorrow'. And from then on we are keen to see what is going to happen to them.
I intentionally do not tell the story of the film, i do not want to spoil it, though it would be very worthy, as it operates on original wit (the scene Michael Caine confesses the use of the tranquilizer), scenery (road to Bexton) and heavy filmic solutions (like the frequent use of Doggicam).
I do believe that this movie is going to be a great success, because the budget of $72,000,000 seems to be well invested.

posted by zsolt at 8:05 AM 3 comments

Monday, December 18, 2006

Euthanasia - Right to Die?

In respect to the issue of euthanasia, as a method, I do not personally see any differences from a physician assisted suicide and DNR order. However, there are active and passive cases of euthanasia- even within passive euthanasia; we can distinguish active – where the patient is conscious, and the passive-passive euthanasia, where his/her relatives are in charge of the body. But the controversy comes up when talking about the ethical right of “Whose body is it?”.

Since Oregon State’s Death with Dignity Act became passed in 1994, the issue of euthanasia has widely been criticized and supported by different groups of religion, politics and other minorities. Moreover, it raises several serious moral, religious and ethical questions.

The legalization of the Measure 16 – another official name of the Death with Dignity Act – means that a physician assisted dying is acceptable in Oregon, with restrictions of course.[1] This law enables an adult, who is capable and of Oregon origin to address a prescription to his/her physician if s/he has been diagnosed with terminal illness.

There was also a fear of coming too many people to Oregon who has also been diagnosed with terminal illnesses. The number of terminally ill people who took advantage of this Measure was 246. In a very recent opinion-essay[2], on the homepage of death with dignity national center, Dr. Daniel Spitz who is probably against a physician assisted death said:

If it's happening, it's being done very quietly and in a way that doesn't create any alarm for the public and authorities …

In Canada, Sue Rodriguez (August 2, 1950 – February 12, 1994) was helped to die by a physician. Sue Rodriguez was a desperate advocate for assisted suicide. She was diagnosed with ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) but fought for the legal right to have an assisted suicide. But under Canadian laws, assisted suicide must be severely punished. It can take the maximum of 14 years imprisonment. She tried to get opinion passed as a law twice, but none of her trying succeeds. On September 30, 1993 the Standard Council of Canada held 5-4 against her[3].

On a Canadian blog site[4] one of the comments informs us that Sue Rodriguez suffered a painful death and:

…her muscles had atrophied to the point that her joints would no longer stay in their sockets. Her shoulders were constantly dislocated…

The comment goes on. It reflects on Rodriguez’s famous question: “Whose body is it?”. The comment agrees with the notion of having full control of one’s body. She finally committed suicide with the help of a doctor. According to a friend of hers, Sven Robinson there were only two people, an unnamed doctor and himself, when Rodriguez passed away on 12, February 1994.

Another case, which is very recent,[5] involves a 60-year-old mother, who killed her 36-year-old son who was suffering in multiple sclerosis. Marielle Houle, the mother won’t be going to jail, however the Criminal Code in Canada could provide a 14-year maximum sentence for her. Her son, Charles Fariala killed himself by the previously selected drug intake, to which he gathers information from the Internet. After taking the drugs, Marielle tied his hands and put a paper bag on his head. She defended herself as she wanted her son to die with dignity.

I would personally label this case as something extreme, but is it not extreme if it is brought to hospital and a doctor assists the son to die? I established that there is no real difference between the methods of mercy-killing, but I have not spoken whether mercy-killing is legal and acceptable morally or ethically?

Both cases reveals two types of mercy-killings: Rodriguez’s case is about trying to get full control of one’s own body, which failed- but what if it had happened in – for example Oregon? The second one is about taking control of another body, although the son wanted to die, to which his mother assisted. In what way are we responsible for our own or other’s body?

posted by zsolt at 3:58 AM 2 comments