It is evident that the viewpoints of Rachel and Mr Preston have been foregrounded throughout the text. This privileges their view that disabled people are human beings just like everyone else. The viewpoints of Anthony Preston have been marginalized, by doing so, he is unable to defend himself against accusations or provide his point of view about Grace’s current situation. Due to Grace’s condition, she is incapable of speaking; however, she is not marginalized throughout the text because the reader must rely on other character’s opinions about her by the viewpoints which are privileged throughout the text. There is no use of binary opposition or intertextuality throughout this novel as no references to other specific texts have been made.
The construction of the novel positions the reader to establish that Grace, like other disabled people, was and still is a person with genuine feelings, emotions and a past similar to others. Someone who may be resistant to the novel would be an unhappy carer or relative as they do not share the same viewpoints as Rachel and Mr Preston. A person who is disgusted by disabled people would also be resistant towards the text as they may feel uncomfortable reading the novel since a major issue evident in text is disability. Another reader who may not agree with the text is a person who is similar to the character of Anthony Preston, who treats women like trophies, as the readers may not agree with the novel’s portrayal of his character.
Oh my, this novel really is something. No wonder all the copies have been stolen. This has been Sam French, reporting live from the National Library of Brisbane.
(The tables are moved back into the middle as they were at the start)
Sabrena: Thank you for that report, Sam.
Anousha: We will now crossover to the Prince Alexander Hospital where the reporter, Jenny Allen, is waiting with another of tonight’s reports.
(The tables are moved apart)
Sabrena: Good afternoon, I am currently standing in front of the Brisbane Lyric Theatre, where a protest has broken out concerning the recent release of the play, ‘Whose Life is it Anyway’. Ever since the play has first performance, there has been ongoing opposition for the support of Euthanasia displayed in the play.
Whose Life is it Anyway?, by Brian Clark, is a play which thoroughly discusses the issue of euthanasia and one’s personal choice to commit suicide. In Clark’s construction of the play, he mobilises the dominant discourse of Disablement. There are two prominent discourses which help construct our view of Disablement, such as personal integrity and the legal discourse. These discourses are mobilised in the text to foreground certain attitudes, values and beliefs.
Throughout the play, the character of Ken Harrison predominantly mobilises the discourse of personal integrity which is also valorised throughout the play. Ken displays a strong sense of moral integrity through his perseverance, determination and stubbornness in his need to commit suicide. Despite the opposing opinions of those surrounding him, he values his dignity and believes that dying by his own will “is a question of dignity”. In Clark’s construction of the play, he also primarily draws upon the legal discourse. Throughout the play, the law is foregrounded as being excessive and inconsiderate to the feelings and conditions of the victims of disablement. The discourse of law values pro-life and opposes euthanasia. This creates a barrier between Ken and his choice of committing suicide. It is mobilised by the characters of Mr Hill, the judge and Dr Emerson, whose attitude is that there is no personal choice because Ken’s life was determined by the judge of a trial proceeding. As Ken claims, “the cruelty doesn’t reside in saving someone or allowing them to die. It resides in the fact that the choice is removed from the man concerned.”
There are two predominant viewpoints which have been represented throughout the play. These consist of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death and Dr Emerson along with those who oppose his death. Ken Harrison feels that he can choose whether or not he lives or dies. Since Ken is paralysed, he can only use his brain and is therefore so dependent on the help of others and machines, he believes that he is basically dead. Since he values his independence, his attitude is that if he can not be independent, there is no point in living. He also values his dignity and would rather die with his dignity intact. However, opposing this viewpoint is Dr Emerson and those who oppose Ken’s death. These characters believe in pro-life which is the act of maintaining life. Since Dr Emerson values his job and the life of his patients, his attitude is that “a doctor cannot accept the choice for death as he’s committed to life”.
It is evident that the viewpoints of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death have been foregrounded throughout the text whereas the viewpoints of Dr Emerson and those who oppose Ken’s death have been marginalised. This is evident throughout the play as Dr Emerson’s viewpoints are not taken into heavy consideration by others. There are less scenes which outline Dr Emerson’s viewpoints compared to those of Ken Harrison. In addition Dr Emerson’s character is portrayed as having a cold personality and also being inconsiderate towards the feelings of his patients. This is achieved through the use of binary opposition, which works to privilege one viewpoint while creating the other as inconsiderate, excessive and wrong. This is evident in the text through the complications present in the plot and the representations of the characters. The predominant binary opposition which is constructed is personal freedom versus legal constraint. These binaries intersect and shape meaning throughout the text, therefore utilising ideological work to position the audience to value Ken Harrison’s viewpoints over the others. Even though there were no references to other specific texts, the concept of intertextuality was introduced as throughout the play, the issue of Euthanasia must be understood. The reader must have an awareness of the continuous debate of Euthanasia around the world and the strong opposition that the law in many countries hold against it, as well as the large number of protests and uproar this results from. In addition, to completely understand the text, the reader must have a thorough insight about the type of disability Ken has and the way that it affects the person concerned. The various methods which have been discussed are utilised to create ideological work by foregrounding the viewpoints of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death rather than the viewpoints of Dr Emerson and those who oppose Ken’s death.
Despite the ideological work used to position the reader into agreeing with Ken Harrison and the viewpoints which are in favour of his death, there may be readers who agree or resist the text due to past experiences and circumstances. A resistant reader may be a person who believes in pro-life, specifically doctors or those who work in medical fields as their jobs are to save lives. Those who represent authority, such as politicians and leaders of countries who oppose Euthanasia may also resist the text as they may view the play to set an inappropriate example. Furthermore, a person who has overcome a disability in the past may be a resistant reader as they may hold the view that Ken should not give up his life but continue to hope for recovery.
Well there it is. This is the play which has caused numerous protests such as this one going on behind me. Clearly there are many facets of the play which are to be considered. This is Jenny Allen, reporting live from the Brisbane Lyric Theatre.
(The tables are moved back together into the middle of the stage)
Anousha: Thank you for that insightful report, Jenny.
Sabrena: Talk about a controversy.
Anousha: Sabrena, what are your opinions on this issue?
Sabrena: Well Anousha, I believe in freedom of speech and allowing everyone to stand up for what they believe in. Even though I have never been disabled, whilst I was reading the play, I could understand why Ken Harrison felt for the need of Euthanasia. If a patient has an appropriate basis of reasons of why they do not want to live anymore, then I believe their opinion should be taken into consideration, just as it was done in the play. It is understandable that doctors value pro-life, as do many others however I believe that if someone is as disabled as Ken Harrison where they are no longer able to perform even basic functions so their own dignity is lost then with their consent, I believe Euthanasia would be the right thing to do.
Anousha: Oh ok, I see. That is quite reasonable.
Sabrena: The issue of Euthanasia is dominantly foregrounded throughout the play, ‘Whose Life is it Anyway’ as the main character, Ken, fights for his right to have a dignified death. Euthanasia means “good or happy death” and is divided into two types: active and passive.
(OHT of definitions is displayed)
Active Euthanasia is defined as the act of killing a sick person, or performing actions which make their death occur more quickly.
Anousha: Passive Euthanasia occurs when someone fails to do something which would keep the sick person alive. In the play, passive euthanasia is present as Ken is granted the right to be discharged from the hospital where he will be without medical attention, therefore, allowing himself to die. Let us see a scene from the play that demonstrates this.
(Anousha and Sabrena act out scene from play)
Sabrena – Mr Hill
Anousha – Dr Emerson
Mr Hill: Mr Harrison wishes to be discharged from hospital. Will you please make the necessary arrangements?
Dr Emerson: No.
Mr Hill: May I ask why not?
Dr Emerson: Because Mr Harrison is incapable of living outside that hospital and it is my duty as a doctor to preserve life.
(Anousha and Sabrena end scene and continue with discussion)
Anousha: Most religions do not oppose passive euthanasia because believe that it is
not morally wrong to allow people to die when they have no hope of recovering; however, Christianity believes that suicide should never be permitted. Instead, it views suicide as an attempt to use a power that belongs only to God.
(OHT of quote is displayed on projector)
Sabrena: Active Euthanasia is viewed differently. As expressed in a 1979 official report of the Lutheran church, “It is within God’s purview alone to decide on the moment when the individual is to share that life which lies beyond death.” Their attitude is that no one other than God may assume this power.
Anousha: But wait a minute Sabrena what if the patient concerned was so severely disabled that they were constantly in pain or completely dependant on others or machines for their survival.
Sabrena: Hmm Anousha that’s a tough situation, I have never thought about it that way before. Well I guess every situation depends on the individual’s circumstance.
(OHT of contact details is displayed on projector)
Anousha: For your opinions on any of today’s topics please feel free to contact us on 3822 2869 or email us at [email protected]
Sabrena: That’s all for today, we hope you’ve enjoyed our broadcast.
Bibliography
Brugman, A. 2001, Finding Grace, NSW: Allen & Unwin
Clark, B. 1978, Whose Life is it Anyway, London: Samuel French Ltd.
Geisler, N. 1989, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, USA: Baker Book House Company
Gott. R and Linden. R. 1993, No easy way out, Victoria: CIS publishers