Evaluate Brian Clark's play "Whose Life Is It Anyway?"

In Act 2, when discussing the situation with his lawyer, Ken states that though he realizes other people may live with terrible handicaps, for him, life would be too burdensome if he were to continue in this way. Ken, then, wishes to be discharged from the hospital, have the catheter removed, so that "the toxic substances will build up in the bloodstream and poison him." This again brings suspense to the action, as the audience is eager to find out the outcome of the conflict between Ken as a patient and the hospital, as a representation of the bureaucracy and authority.

The scene of the courtroom showdown can be regarded as the highest climax of the play, as the audience realizes that the conflict is going to be resolved after the judge reaches his final verdict. Clark shows how Ken's emotions come to a peak as the hearing comes to its conclusion.  At the beginning of the scene, there is a fast-moving exchange between the judge and Ken demonstrating their quick wits:

"Ken: I'd prefer it if you were a hanging judge

Judge: There aren't any any more"

The debate then turns to more serious matters - the difference between unhappiness and depression: "Ken: I'm almost totally paralysed. I'd be insane if I weren't depressed.

Judge: But there is a difference between being unhappy and being depressed in the medical sense"

The key point of the scene, and I think, of the whole book, is then introduced by the author through Ken's speech:

"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." It seems like in the final scene Clark invites audience to participate in making the decision and to think about the issues raised in the play.

For the purpose of keeping the audience interested throughout the whole play the author also uses the means of dramatic irony, creating a relationship of contrast between the characters’ limited understanding of their situation in some particular moment of the unfolding action and what the audience, at the same moment, understands the situation actually to be.  One of the examples can be observed at the beginning of Act 2, when Ken asks to see his solicitor, Mr. Hill on the matter of being discharged from the hospital. The doctors, however, think that Ken is “beginning to plan for the future” by claiming the compensation. Thus, on one hand things appear from the doctors’ point of view that emerges within the action at a given moment, and which is constrained by the limitations of their awareness up to that moment.  On the other hand, the audience’s awareness of both perspectives becomes clear as Ken reveals his real plans in the following scene.

Another example of dramatic irony can be perceived in the scene, when Mr. Hill talks to Ken’s barrister about a Consultant Physician from Ellertree (p.56).

While both Mr. Hill and Mr. Kershaw are unaware how the hospital got the signatures under Mental Health Act, the audience already knows about the agreement between Dr. Emerson and Dr. Travers to find “an old codger”, “who believes in something better than suicide” (p.44).

The atmosphere of the play created around different settings also has an important impact on keeping the audience interested. As it has been mentioned before, the action mainly takes place around Ken’s bed, making him a central “static” character of the play. In Act 1 Ken seems to be very much alone: his disability makes him different and distances him from the people he encounters. For example, he says to Dr. Scott, “It’s surprising how relaxed a woman can be when she is not in the presence of man.” He is saying this very plainly, because he does not feel he is a man any longer. No close friends come and see Ken - he sent them away. We can say that he is alone by choice, as well as because of his accident.  In response to a question from the psychiatrist about any relationships, he says “A fiancée actually. I asked her not to visit me any more. About a fortnight ago.” He sent her away because he feels she was just staying with him out of a sense of duty. It was meant to “release her from the guilt she would feel if she did what she really wanted to.” The setting in Act 1 produces a powerful dramatic effect, which makes the audience begin to sympathize with Ken. Due to the atmosphere created by the author, I felt that the idea of control and power is very much the theme of Clark's play. The degree to which Harrison must submit to the power of those who "know best" is chillingly highlighted in an early scene when Harrison is injected with a sedative against his will by D. Emerson. However if in Act 1 I see Ken as a powerless disabled patient controlled by the nurses, the doctors and the whole medical system, in Act 2 it seems that the atmosphere of powerlessness changes: the author brings the audience into the courtroom setting, where Harrison after all becomes in control of his life and death. Despite the fact that his physical condition has not changed (Dr. Scott still has to raise his hand for him to take the oath), I felt that in this scene Harrison becomes a defeater on so to say intellectual and spiritual levels: Ken wins his final battle against bureaucracy and authority. I think the contrast of the atmosphere in the hospital and the courtroom scenes adds to the dramatic power of the play, which also helps to sustain the interest of the audience.

The structure of the play skilfully takes the audience from one scene to another revealing the outline of the plot. The title starts the play with a question and all further events are to answer to it. The title in a way shows that it is meant to be, partly, a clash of wills between two conflicting 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 merely depressed and that if given more 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 2 the events develop further on: in order to prevent Ken's discharge and ensuing 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 discontinue the lifesaving care. The climax of the play is the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus, Justice Millhouse presiding. Ken tries to take an objective view of his situation, explaining to the judge how little he really 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 evident that Ken is speaking from the heart. In his emotional speech he uses an indisputable statement – “If I choose to live, it would be appalling if society killed me” - to try and prove to the judge a much more “controversial” statement – “If I choose to die, it is equally appalling if society keeps me alive”. Ken manipulates with what is basically the same array of words to convey two very different points. These two sentences have an almost poetic pulse, which makes them one of the most memorable quotations from the play.

The analysis of the structure of the play suggests that the author deliberately placed the climax point in the very last scene, so that the audience would be entirely engrossed in the development of events from the beginning to the very end of the play.

Along with the above-mentioned means of upholding the attention of the audience, Clark proficiently uses humour. Although the subject matter is disturbing, the paralysed Ken is pictured by the author as  “a character who has retained his wry humour along with his considerable intellect; the undeniably sad content of the play is leavened by his observations.” We see Ken is a man whose body may be broken but whose spirit is alive and well. He never allows himself self-pity and preserves 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 and black humour in Ken’s jokes. "You only grow the vegetables here, the vegetable store is somewhere else," uses he a pun as his intelligence manifests itself in wicked humour, which I think is his only defence against circumstances he cannot control. A lot of Ken’s jokes come across at times more like sexual banters, which from one side 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”).

Humour is injected into the whole play, sometimes serving to break up some of the most serious dialogues, like in the courtroom scene: "Judge: There also has to be absolutely no brain activity at all. Yours is certainly working." Despite the significance of questions about death, free will, and social morality posed during Ken's quest, 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. John jokes around with Nurse Sadler and gives his perspective of the hospital. He says that the hospital is an anteroom of the morgue. Nurse Sadler debates this, mentioning Mr. Trevellyan who is being released next morning. John replies with a comical comment: “After his third heart attack! I hope they give him a return ticket on the ambulance.”

Although the humour is vital in keeping the audience's interest, I think it also has a more important part to play, i.e. the judge's speech, although witty, has a serious point behind it - should someone with a healthy brain like Ken be allowed to die? I think the author uses humour as an effective way of communicating to the audience - when the joke has worn off, the serious message remains.

 

Showing contrasting characters of Dr. Scott and Dr. Emerson can be regarded as another device used by Clark for engaging the attention of the audience. The author shows us how dissimilar their opinions and beliefs are in relation to Ken’s situation. The contrast between these two characters becomes expressly clear in the “tranquilliser” scene. Dr. Scott enters the scene asking Sister whether she would deliver the drug to Ken. However, she decides that she will personally go and administer it to him. This can be considered as a signal to the audience that Dr. Scott shares more than just a professional relationship with Ken, that she is willing to provide her attention and care.

In her argument with Dr. Emerson, Dr. Scott tries to prove that Ken’s “subjective decision may be more valid” as “only he knows more about how he feels.” I find Dr. Emerson’s answer to this argument almost shocking: “It makes no difference. His knowledge isn’t based on experience of a hundred such cases,” he states. It is not surprising that Ken tries to distance himself from Dr. Emerson as he sees the latter as one of the most powerful opponents to his plan. Harrison refers to Him as God: “[Dr. Emerson] will sweep in here like Zeus from Olympus, with his attendant nymphs and swains.” Nymphs and swains imply the others who are subservient to Dr. Emerson. It sounds like a fair comparison: Dr. Emerson and most of his medical staff are threatening, invincible and hold the power of life and death over him. Ken uses sarcastic expressions such as “the monstrous regiment” and “the optimism industry” which classes Dr. Emerson and his viewpoint as the opposition.

Doctor Scott supports Ken’s decision convinced by his calm, rational, and intelligent firmness. However, Dr. Scott also expresses her distress with Ken’s choice; she feels that Ken has a brilliant mind and she does not want it destroyed: “He’s so… bright…intelligent… He says he wants to die.” “Many patients say that.” “I know that Sister, but he means it. It’s just a calm, rational decision.” Ken seems to be different in her eyes because she sees he is not just another depressed patient, he knows exactly how his life is going to be from now on and refuses to accept it in this form. This is something that Ken desperately desires and reflects that by talking more openly and with more friendly affection to her than to Dr. Emerson. “It’ s (heart) broken, broken in two. But each part carries on bravely yearning for a woman in a white coat,” he confesses drolly to Dr. Scott, which differs drastically from his abrupt, sarcastic tone with strictly professional Dr. Emerson.

As we can see, Clark explores the theme of his play in deep contrasts of characters, attitudes and actions, which makes the play especially engaging for the audience.

The tone of the play is not over-emotional, which I think can be explained by the fact that the central argument is not over the right to die, but more – over the right to choose. Harrison tries to point out what he is actually in pursuit of: "My Lord, I am not asking anyone to kill me. I am only asking to be discharged from this hospital.” Ken wants to be free from his frustrating dependence on others and to have the right to make decisions about his own life and death. The play exposes more the legal and moral aspects of the situation than the sentimental viewpoint on the matter. I think this creates an additional dramatic effect, which helps the author to maintain the interest of the audience, as it gives audience a chance to make their own conclusions on the objective problem brought up by Brian Clark.

In my opinion, "Whose Life is it Anyway?" by Brian Clark is very thought provoking as it gives audience an opportunity to test their attitudes toward life, death, and the significant choices that must be made in regard to both. I think what is significant about the play is that it ends before the actual ending, i.e. before the judge actually announces his verdict, which to a point is immaterial. I think it is not the verdict that matters in this play, but making the audience think about the issues. With the development of medical technology, people can now have a better quality of life. Moreover, many lives, which normally would not survive without the advance in medical treatment, can now be artificially prolonged. The central character Ken Harrison, has met this situation. Nevertheless, I think it is cruel to ask him to face this life if he does not desire to. He can no longer sculpt, run, move, kiss, or have any form of sexual fulfilment. Obviously, his normal life has drifted away. Should his state really be classified as life? Many people might disagree with the fact he is already dead.  Certainly, he is medically alive, but spiritually, can he really be classified as such? I think to sustain people's lives, just because the technology is available, is unacceptable under certain circumstances. It is the individual patient who must make a decision about whether to keep himself alive: "What is the point of prolonging a person's biological life if it is obtained at the cost of a serious assault on that person's liberty? There is probably no simple answer for this question. Any patient's decision should be respected, not based on the fact of all available technologies.” 

Finally, the play offers a fascinating study of some uses of humour in medical situations and many opportunities to discuss healer-patient relationships.

---