How does Brian Clark interest and entertain his Audience in the play 'Whose Life is it Anyway?'
How does Brian Clark interest and entertain his
Audience in the play 'Whose Life is it Anyway?'
Throughout the play, 'Whose life is it anyway?' it is made obvious that it is based on the late 20th century as it contains many references towards modern drugs, medical technology and jargon. It is a strong emotional play focusing on one man as he fights a desperate struggle to regain control of his life and the right to die. Ken Harrison, who is the main character, feels his life has already ended when he is involved in a serious car accident and faces substantial injuries as Dr Emerson emphasises from his notes.
"Mr Harrison was admitted here on the afternoon of October 9th as an emergency case following a road accident. He was suffering from a fractured left tibia and right tibia and fibia, a fractured pelvis, four fractured ribs. One of which had punctured the lung and dislocated the fourth vertebra, which had ruptured the spinal cord. He was extensively bruised and had minor lacerations. He was deeply unconscious and remained so for thirty hours. As a result of treatment all the broken bones and ruptured tissue have healed with the exception of the severed spinal cord and this together, with the mental trauma is all that remains of the initial injury."
This statement clearly proves that Ken will face a life without any movement in his body below his neck, this therefore leads to Kens very profound wish to die with dignity, which is commonly known as euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a very recent debate that is still left to be deciphered in the UK. It has already been made legal in Holland causing local cases to arise. For instance a terminally ill woman named Diane Pretty attempted to face the courts in a battle for her husband to take her life but lost and so died a slow painful death which could have been prevented.
I personally feel that someone with an acceptable and satisfactory reason to die should over rule any professional opinion and gain the right for a dignified and painless death. In other peoples opinion it is suggested that a person so intelligent as to put up a suitable case is in theory 'too good' to die. This is what Ken considers catch 22,a no win situation, he is trapped. I do not believe that it is fair to a person and I would even call it cruel, to keep a person alive if it is their rightful wish to die. Especially when animals are put down, sometimes even against their will.
Recently a cause of concern is animal rights. Why should animals be allowed to be put out off their misery but not a human? It is considered that a human life is more important than an animals but this is not true. Both species feel pain and have the right to live or die so why put one over the other? If it is fair to kill an animal and not be called a murderer then some would argue it is necessary for human 'dignified deaths' to be recognized as the same. Would anyone want to suffer because the only cure for their pain wasn't allowed?
Another argument would be that it is wrong. What if someone wished to die as an act of suicide? Or if family agreed for a relative to die for their own reasons. Both sides are still arguing and a decision is still left to be decided.
I feel that it should be allowed in the most extreme of cases and it should be a family decision rather than some random doctor who has no personal reference towards the patient therefore is not suitable to make a decision. What gives doctors the right to take over a patient's ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another argument would be that it is wrong. What if someone wished to die as an act of suicide? Or if family agreed for a relative to die for their own reasons. Both sides are still arguing and a decision is still left to be decided.
I feel that it should be allowed in the most extreme of cases and it should be a family decision rather than some random doctor who has no personal reference towards the patient therefore is not suitable to make a decision. What gives doctors the right to take over a patient's life to keep their own record perfect by having no deaths? A doctor's job is to save lives but not at the expense of someone's future and happiness. Anybody can refuse treatment, which could cause them to die so why not make it easier and painless for them.
This play is based around this issue for instance, should someone with such a serious condition as Ken's be given the opportunity for his or her own choices?
In the play a deep impression is being portrayed on the fact that Ken has a disability to move. An example of this is shown by stage directions such as
"Lights cross fade."
This gives a clear impression that Ken cannot move, he is forever bedridden, never moves, and is completely dependant on doctors, drugs and machines and will never regain feeling in his body. This would be shown in a play perhaps by Ken never moving off stage as a symbol that he cannot go anywhere. Being a sculptor this would be the ending of life, as he can't do anything he wants which makes him happy.
Ken is considered an intelligent, witty man with an obvious and understandable sense of frustration. He seemed to have the perfect life before the accident as he had a loving fiancée and a job, both of which he lost in the accident. In the film version of 'Whose Life is it Anyway?' the car accident, which Ken is involved in, is shown quite dramatically with Ken's sports car crashing violently into a lorry with shots of him covered in blood. Where as in the play version there is very little reference towards the incident and only speaks of Ken's injuries. Another difference between the film and play versions is the fiancée. In the film we see the fiancée as she plans a new life with Ken but he sends her away recalling only,
"She wants real babies".
This shows that he is isolated.
I feel very sorry for Ken because in his condition he is unable to do anything for himself, which is especially hard on a sculptor, but would be difficult on anyone with a certain amount of independency. If I were in Ken's position I would wish to die also because there would be quality of life. Although technology may become more advanced in the future, the present would be too unbearable.
Ken himself doesn't feel human and is actually enjoying the battling to prove that fact. A show of evidence towards this would be on page 54 when Dr Scott is speaking to Ken and says, "I think you are enjoying all this." Which in fact is true and so Ken replies,
"I suppose I am in a way. For the first time in six months I feel like a human being again."
This can be interpreted as a sign of confusion as before Ken claimed he didn't feel human which was his reason to die, and there could be other things that enable him to feel human. For instance other causes he could challenge himself to achieve. Ken is also faced with another issue and that is his case. The position in which Ken is in puts him in a no-win situation (catch 22). If Ken is able to put up a suitable case it is thought that someone with such obvious intelligence shouldn't be wasted. On the other hand if he fails to put up a satisfactory case it could be suggested that he is clinically depressed in which he is subdued to any actions the doctors see fit. Dr Emerson takes charge of this before hand and injects Ken with a shot of Valium against his wishes gaining a strongly worded plea from Ken,
"don't stick that fucking thing in me!"
At this point Ken will have been very frustrated as he was vulnerable and helpless and could do nothing to prevent receiving 'treatment' following in Ken pursuing a lawyer who sees that Ken doesn't receive anymore unnecessary treatment and attempts to represent Ken in a battle for death, this would be a very unusual request for someone who usually helps people to live. At this point Ken is forced to prove his sanity and that his depression is the expected reactive depression. But the real question is 'what is normal? Can anyone prove they are normal?' What ones persons normal is, could be another persons abnormal. Normal, cannot be referred to as a single feature, so why should a complete stranger, just by speaking with someone, be allowed to decide his or her fate and especially over such a serious matter. In this situation Kens considers losing the battle to be literally a life sentence, in which he is condemned to, the hospital forever. In effect Ken tells the audience that he has parents and a fiancée who would be willing to look after him, however Ken doesn't wish to be looked after like a baby, as he can't do anything, and so throughout the play we never come across them. This also is another show of evidence towards Ken's isolation, as he has distanced himself from
those he perhaps took for granted before, leaving himself alone. What sort of a life is this?
Other main characters in which we do see are hospital workers such as Ken's physician Dr Emerson. Dr Emerson can be classed as either a good or bad doctor as he is dedicated to saving lives but maybe this is at his own expense. He cares about Ken greatly and doesn't want to see him die, this leads to Dr Emerson to pinpoint Ken as clinically depressed and moreover inject him with drugs against his wish which is in fact illegal. Dr Emerson to me is a very selfish man, as he is interested in Ken only to boost his own reputation, not for Ken's sake. Dr Emerson makes several attempts to condemn Ken to the hospital but fails to succeed and so Ken receives what he desires. I don't think that Ken himself likes Dr Emerson after the injection incident, which is understandable, as in effect Dr Emerson betrayed Ken's trust and therefore lost his respect. If Dr Emerson really cared about Ken he would have respected Kens decision and not tried to prevent it from being upheld. Therefore in my opinion Dr Emerson is a bad doctor and not one I'd like to have.
Dr Scott another of Ken's doctors is a very caring person, she and Ken are very close and their relationship may not be entirely professional as Ken makes sexual comments towards her for example, "you have lovely breasts." Dr Scott believes Ken should be able to make his own decisions and defends Ken. She helps to convince Kens lawyer Mr Hill that Ken is not clinically depressed, so he agrees to represent Ken against the hospital. Dr Scott feels that Ken is wrong to make the decision but how can she or anyone else imagine what Ken is going through?
At the end of the play she makes an attempt to kiss Ken but he rejects her as he may feel that it could change his mind, but is he would stay alive for Dr Scott why not for his fiancée?
I like Dr Scott as I think she genuinely cares about Ken and doesn't want to see him make the wrong decision as there is no way to correct it. She assists Ken, which shows she has the respect he needs in his situation. I think she feels guilty about Ken's paralysis, as there was no way she could help him. Ken picks up on this, which is the reason he wants to die because he knows he is correct in the assumption that people will treat him differently. If Ken were to return home he would no longer be Ken the person he would be a person to feel sorry for, when he would rather be recognized as simply, Ken the cripple.
John, a hospital orderly, unlike Dr Scott treats Ken how he wants, which is what he is, a cripple. Ken enjoys John treating him like a disabled person rather than like a patient who requires sympathy reminding him that he has lost his body. John also feels free of guilt unlike all the other doctors, which is why his attitude is different. John plays a role of entertainment towards Ken and likewise towards the audience. An excellent example of this is when Ken is repeating Johns account of the jobs that Ken could do so quotes, "I could be a tennis umpire; then as my head was going I could knock a pendulum from side to side to keep a clock going," John also comes up with other ideas such as child minding. Ken finds this amusing which is one of the reasons why Ken befriends him.
A strong view of Johns is that a lot of money is being spent on Ken when he doesn't appreciate it which could have been spent on people in Africa who really need it to save lives. Ken doesn't want his life to be saved as he feels he doesn't have one. So what justifies wasting the money?
Although many of the characters feel that Ken is making a wrong decision I don't believe he is. To me life is about being able to do the things you want to do therefore if all my feeling had been lost I wouldn't have wanted to live either. Ken lost everything in the accident, his fiancée, his body, and worst of all his dignity. Ken can no longer do anything for himself consequently forcing him to be completely dependant on doctors and machines to function for him. This is not life it is torture. By dying Ken can stop this endless suffering, and regain his dignity and go without pain.
Even if Ken remained somewhat alive for a number of years in hope that technology may change, there is no guarantee of improvement. This would lead to extensive suffering that would be harmful to his mental state and could result in serious depression. No longer has Ken got anything to live for, so even if he had chosen to live, he would be in the worst situation a person could ask for.
Throughout the play a constant level of interest is being maintained from humorous and sexual jokes from Ken to the main topic of euthanasia. Which instantly grasps the audience and their attention, as it is such an important matter and highly debated situation. To me and probably most audience members this is a very powerful, emotional and heart gripping play capturing real life scenarios and putting them into perspective, allowing the audience to imagine the characters in life which is difficult to achieve.
Brian Clark has interpreted Ken, as a calm person, whom I think, is quite unlikely to be, as if I were in that position I would be going insane, as I would feel trapped. This is what I imagine Ken to feel but he try's to conceal it. So it is my decision and opinion that Ken made the correct decision to die and did the only possible option to him.
I really enjoyed reading this play, as it was very interesting and constantly portrayed humour and allowed you to think. This to me is a very important feature of a play. The main theme of euthanasia maintains a constant level of interest rising arguments amongst the audience on the question, 'should euthanasia be made legal?'
I would personally suggest that in most people's views it should, as the more caring and sensitive people would care more about the person concerned. The video we watched I thought showed quite well how I expected the characters to be and the expressions that they showed. I found the play better though as it allowed to some extent, your imagination to be used. Where as the video prevented this, as the characters were in front of you.
Kerry Bell