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?