Whether euthanasia, or more specifically, physician-assisted suicide, should be legalized or not, has been debated for a long time. From a humanitarian point of view, it seems that doctors can help some patients who cannot bear the pain and voluntarily give up their lives to leave, but the main objection is to consider that in the process of specific implementation, there are too many places that may be used by criminals.
The tendency of the movie itself seems to be a bit obvious. It is easy to lead the audience to think from Jack's point of view, and it is easy for the audience to lean towards a supportive position, but I'm afraid I can't fully agree with Jack's point of view. First, his criteria for judging whether a patient should be euthanized is too subjective, and most importantly, the level of suffering the patient is suffering. He forgot to take out economic factors, such as the first patient, if he could afford the medical bills, would he still choose to die? This is the one thing I can't agree with the most about Jack.
Euthanasia is to give dignity to the terminally ill. If you have to choose death because of money, this is precisely the most undignified way to die!
Before the conditions for euthanasia are mature, I think it is more urgent to improve the medical security mechanism, so that patients can face less financial pressure when they are suffering from pain.
This is what I thought when I wrote my dissertation a month and a half ago, but rewatching the film gave me some new ideas.
Why does Jack challenge the law time and time again, and why does he insist on helping every patient who seeks help even when he is unable to protect himself? No matter what he faces, Jack always puts the patient first. This is Jack's most valuable point. The benevolence of the doctor is also the most worthy of my learning. For a doctor, a patient may be just a small point in his career, but for a patient, a doctor may decide everything.
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
