In order to make the play more dramatic the debate further Brian Clark uses a dramatic point. The point is that before Ken suffered his accident he was happy and wanted to go on living, but at that time people listened to him and he could have argued a point and people would have listened to it. Now that Ken finds himself in a situation where he doesn't want to go on living, few people want to listen to him: 'Only my brain functions unimpaired but even that is futile because I can't act on any conclusions it comes to. This hearing proves that. Will you please listen?' The entire play is a power struggle between Ken and the medical establishment. Ken is visited by Mrs. Boyle, a social worker who tries to help Ken to move on and accept his disability and living a life with the disability. Mrs. Boyle is capable of helping some people but Ken isn't interested, his greatest passion in life was his sculpture, and because Dr. Emerson has confirmed his worst fears - that he will never use his hands again, he can never sculpt again. Without this his life is meaningless and Ken doesn't want Mrs. Boyles help, Ken absolutely takes her to pieces, he throws everything he has at her. The title starts the play with a question and it’s answered towards the end of the play. The title in a way shows that it is meant to be, partly, a clash of wills between two sides. In Act 1 the audience finds out about the main character, Ken Harrison, about his accident and the injuries it caused. Dr. Emerson, the attending physician, believes that Ken is just depressed and that if given time will choose to live. He states, "It is impossible to injure the body to the extent that Mr. Harrison had and not affect the mind." From his experience, he thinks that Ken will change his mind later on. In Act two the events change later on: in order to prevent Ken's discharge and death, Dr. Emerson seeks to have Ken committed to the hospital as mentally unstable, but Ken's lawyers apply for a writ of habeas corpus which would free Ken to leave the hospital and finish his case. Ken tries to take a different view of his situation, explaining to the judge how little he can do. He cannot even, in his words, manage the "basic primitive functions," which before the accident he would have taken for granted. Ken sums up his opinions into a single sentence: "I find the hospital's persistent efforts to maintain this shadow of a life an indignity and it's inhumane." It is obvious that Ken is speaking from the heart. In his emotional speech he uses a good statement - "If I choose to live, it would be appalling if society killed me" - to try and prove to the judge a different statement - "If I choose to die, it is equally appalling if society keeps me alive". Ken with what are basically the same words to show two different points. These two sentences have a high importance, which makes them one of the most memorable quotations from the play. The analysis of the play suggests that the author purposely placed the end point in the very last scene, so that the audience would be excited in the range of events from the beginning to the end of the play.
We see Ken is a man whose body may be broken but whose spirit is well. He never allows himself to feel sorry and keeps his dignity through jokes, mainly about his condition, i.e. in his answer to Dr. Emerson's question "How are you this morning?" he says, "As you see, racing around all over the place." Almost every time we feel sarcasm humor in Ken's jokes. "You only grow the vegetables here, the vegetable store is somewhere else," his intelligence reveals itself in wicked humor, which I think is his only defense against what he cannot control. A lot of Ken's jokes come across at times as sexual banters, which produces a shocking contrast to his physical disability and on the other hand moves and amuses the audience "Have me on the floor, Sister, please. Have me on the floor".
Humor is injected into the whole play, sometimes serving to break up some of the most serious parts, like in the courtroom scene: "Judge: There also has to be absolutely no brain activity at all. Yours is certainly working." .we smile quite a bit and even laugh. For the same purpose, Clark also introduces a comical character to his play (John), which helps the audience to see some things from a different angle through his jokes.
At the point when ken receives an injection of valium from Dr Emerson, the audience can see that the relationship between them has completely broken down. After Dr Scott leaves, Dr Emerson he gives ken valium at his most vulnerable point without consent. It is clear to the audience that ken is thinking about his future and doesn’t want his mind affected by the valium “please let me make myself clear I specifically asked refused permission to stick that needle in me and you didn’t listen” kens tone of voice and speech make us feel that euthanasia is becoming his decision. The lights out at the end of the play represents kens decision to follow euthanasia if the light would have been left on then he may have decided to live.
Euthanasia should not be made legal because it will be easily misused unnecessarily. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill", it will become non-voluntary. I also believe that Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, loads of people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about being a burden could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide.
