Euthanasia - Whose Life Is It, Anyway? (with subs)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- The 1981 movie is wholy devoted to the problem of withdrawing life support. Not an instance of euthanasia per se, but revolving around the same type of end-of-life problem.
What I like most about this picture is the fact, that it leaves the viewer in suspense. It does not present the actual death of Ken Harrison, leaving the question open as to whether he chose death, or succumbed to the torments of suffering and finally chose life for which some of his doctors and nurses were fighting so furiously...
"Thank you very much, Your Honor."
"I hope so."
It's a shame this "little" film has been largely forgotten. Great acting all around.
one of richard's best
such an amazing movie, loved richard dreyfuss in this role
Treatment should be for restoration of health,not merely for delaying imminent death
Brilliant film and makes an excellent point. I saw it in the mid 80s on video, have never seen it on TV.
Praise Kenneth McMillan!
Por favor que alguien suba esta pelicula (whose life is it anyway( doblada al castellano o subtitulada. gracias.
It still moves me deeply. It demands that the viewer justify their existence, which is no easy task. It argues that life must have value and that value is an individual determination. Still, does it really settle any matter? I think not. Because meaning can be learned. The playwright is sure that he cannot have any purpose other than being a sculptor, and that existence is not possible without sex. These are in my opinion false conclusions. Certainly the right to refuse assistance should be that of a patient's, and not the sole determination of a care provider. But the larger questions almost seem impossible to answer in any universal way. And the unwillingness of the character's ability to adapt seems out of sync with his passion for life. It is almost like he was dead before the accident.
Not sure how you concluded that "the playwright is sure that he cannot have any purpose other than being a sculptor, and that existence is not possible without sex". Certainly the main character seems to believe that -- but there's a world of difference between the play's intent and the protagonist's.... Your final, broader conclusions came from watching the play, no? Does the playwright not get any credit for stirring your imagination?
@@Finians_MancaveWell, I have seen both. And I own the play.
@@Finians_MancaveAlso, I think what I wrote was clear enough.
@@chopin65 No, I don't think it was (Or, at least, I don't agree with your interpretation). You stated, "The playwright is sure that he cannot have any purpose other than being a sculptor, and that existence is not possible without sex". While that certainly seems to hold true for the MAIN CHARACTER, that doesn't necessarily translate into the playwright's beliefs in general. The proof of that is he wrote a play that made you think, and ultimately disagree with the protagonist's beliefs (as they were presented). You also acknowledged that you were moved by the story - more proof that the playwright presented both sides in a way that you must have thought true-to-life. Yet at the same time, you seem to imply that the playwright personally agrees with the protagonist - essentially that life is empty without sculpting and sex - so doesn't deserve any credit for your own conclusions. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
Learn to be coherent