NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251160/

In the movie John Q. John Q's son needs a new heart, however his insurance won't cover the procedure, and it'll cost $75,000 to even put his son on the Transplant list. So what does John do, he holds the hospital hostage until his son is put on the list.

Would you consider his ideas and actions moral? Why or why not?

While I think he has the right idea, his son should at least be put on the list, his actions are immoral. Because it's not fair to the doctors or nurses to be held hostage, when they're just doing their job. So, right idea, wrong plan of actions.

Yeah, standard good-intentions but bad-thing-to-do.

Of course you could say the moral of the movie is that the medical industry needs a little more... heart.

He had a good reason to do what he did. but that reason doesn't excuse his actions. if he held the docs and nurses hostage (as in they were stuck in the room that he was in) then he also endangered other patients in that hospital.

His actions are immoral, according to academic ethics, if he breaks a moral code or a code of ethics. A moral person is one that follows his established codes, while someone who breaks them is immoral.

Are we speaking about John Q's personal code of morals or the social moral codes of his society?

He signed the social contract of his society, in this case the code of the United States of America, just by living on it, and then he broke it when he decided to break the laws established by said code, that forbids kidnapping and are indeed the representation of said code. So, in the case of social codes, his actions were immoral. He decided to live in a society, and then he broke its established rules, labeling him as immoral.

About his personal code of morals, that establishes the well being of his son over anything else, even above the rules established by his society, so he was indeed pretty moral, he followed his own core of beliefs to the end.

The question is, are social codes of morals or ethics superior to the individual ones? To that one we can find arguments and reasons defending each possible posture, and will eventually enter the field of ideology and politics, without reaching an agreement. It is expected, as wiser and more educated people have tried to reach said agreement in the past, and haven't succeeded.

Yeah, standard good-intentions but bad-thing-to-do.

Of course you could say the moral of the movie is that the medical industry needs a little more... heart.

haven't seen the movie. What reason did they give for not putting the son on the transplant list?

He signed the social contract of his society, in this case the code of the United States of America, just by living on it, and then he broke it when he decided to break the laws established by said code, that forbids kidnapping and are indeed the representation of said code. So, in the case of social codes, his actions were immoral. He decided to live in a society, and then he broke its established rules, labeling him as immoral.

Ah, more of the social contract bullshit. Gotta be the only kind of contract that you enter into without your consent, knowledge or even choice. Well except for slavery auction contracts.

According to your logic, smoking marijuana is an immoral act. This tells me your logic is bullshit.

Ah, more of the social contract bullshit. Gotta be the only kind of contract that you enter into without your consent, knowledge or even choice.

The social contract obviously exists in an abstract context, obviously it's not voluntary, but very few serious academics or philosophers argue that it is, because that's not the point, that is the way things are (fair or not). However, I definitely don't think abiding by the 'code of the contract' is moral or not, I don't think that has anything to do with it.

The social contract obviously exists in an abstract context, obviously it's not voluntary, but very few serious academics or philosophers argue that it is, because that's not the point, that is the way things are (fair or not).

Well, in business law, if a contract is not entered into voluntarily, it's an invalid contract.

Maybe that's why I object to the term 'contract' used to describe what is essentially nothing more than de jure and de facto enforcement.

However, I definitely don't think abiding by the 'code of the contract' is moral or not, I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Agreed.

This is just another re-telling of the old "stealing bread to feed your starving children" conundrum.

Well, in business law, if a contract is not entered into voluntarily, it's an invalid contract.

Maybe that's why I object to the term 'contract' used to describe what is essentially nothing more than de jure and de facto enforcement.


Well the idea is that freedom of movement is vital for a valid social contract to exist, since this doesn't really properly exist in the world currently and you don't have much of a choice as about where else to go, nation states don't operate under a properly valid contract. My main point is that you shouldn't dismiss social contract theorisers under the premise that they think the contract we have is fair at the moment, because most don't.

Maybe if he'd actually killed himself to give his own heart, rather than lucking out with some deus ex machina crap. As it is, he was a selfish asshole who endangered other people's lives for his own benefit.

Maybe if he'd actually killed himself to give his own heart, rather than lucking out with some deus ex machina crap. As it is, he was a selfish asshole who endangered other people's lives for his own benefit.

BUT THAT'S DENZEL YOU'RE TALKIN' ABOUT! Everybody loves Denzel! If you don't love Denzel, you must be a racist. :tongue:

That the initiation of force to achieve ones goal is bad is a fundamental of Libertarianism. :::tears up your Libertarian card:::

Hmm.. Would he have done the same for somebody elses child ?

Ah, more of the social contract bullshit.

Blame Rousseau, not me. I didn't created societies and social institutions. That doesn't mean said societies and institutions, and the implied social contract, doesn't exist. That you, and to an extent me, do not agree with the implications of the social contract doesn't mean it doesn't affect us, or John Q, for that matter.

Gotta be the only kind of contract that you enter into without your consent, knowledge or even choice. Well except for slavery auction contracts.

I won't deny it. I am not even disagreeing with that. I am not saying I like it.

According to your logic, smoking marijuana is an immoral act.

According to the society's rules that you are living in, I take, smoking marijuana is an immoral act. What I think or I don't doesn't change or even affect that fact, or what you think about it, for that matter. I highlighted the difference between individual moral codes and social moral codes. Actually, it was the entire point of my post and argument, that indeed didn't have ANYTHING to do with my own set of beliefs, or what I consider moral or immoral. Think again, please, and reconsider.

This tells me your logic is bullshit.

Read twice and think at least three times before jumping out so determined and with bare teeth at people, mmmmk? In any case, you are not making any logical argument against what I did say. You are making a moral argument against what you perceived it could be my set of morals. The part that grinds your gears, it seems, is about collective and social moral and ethic codes. Well, those doesn't have anything to do with my logic or my morals, so stop including the "yours" part, it is not pertinent.

The big moral justification for his actions was presented as the evil Hospital/healthcare system required an impossibly large cash payment to put the kid on the donor recipient list, thus making the healthcare system appear to be immoral and unethical by essentially putting a price tag on a human life.

Whether that's a realistic portrayal of how the organ donation system works I do not know, but if it's that way in real life then I can see how a parent would be more than willing to serve a measly 5 year prison term in exchange for saving his son's life.

What is not mentioned in the movie is:

Because this child received the heart, does that mean someone else, who was at the top of the list before him, will die? Needing a heart transplant and being at the top of the list means we can't assume the next patient got what they needed in time. Was some other innocent person killed so that this child could be saved? They clearly didn't have a say in the matter, at any rate.

That's important, and one wonders if the recipient who WAS at the top of the recipient list died, could John Q then be charged with manslaughter for preventing them from receiving the heart?

I don't know if it's moral. But if it was my child and there was no other way to save them, I would not hesitate to do it.

That's important, and one wonders if the recipient who WAS at the top of the recipient list died, could John Q then be charged with manslaughter for preventing them from receiving the heart?

Hmm. Maybe murder would even stick.

I don't know if it's moral. But if it was my child and there was no other way to save them, I would not hesitate to do it.
^This.

I don't know if it's moral. But if it was my child and there was no other way to save them, I would not hesitate to do it.

What parent wouldn't? And that's where somehow, somewhere, the story breaks down. If this could be done in real life we'd hear about it happening on a daily basis. There's a realism hole somewhere in the story.

What parent wouldn't? And that's where somehow, somewhere, the story breaks down. If this could be done in real life we'd hear about it happening on a daily basis. There's a realism hole somewhere in the story.

It's a movie. Of course there are holes in it's realism.

There are many huge holes in the proposed situation. For me, the salient point is that I would endanger innocents if it would lead to a much higher probability of my child surviving a lethal event.

Now, since I don't want to be a hypocrite, I would have to argue that this is moral. But I would be rationalising my actions, rather than basing my actions on rational thoughts about morality.

It's a movie. Of course there are holes in it's realism.

But here's the thing. This movie is trying to make a statement, and when you have to bend reality past a certain point to make that statement, IMHO it diminishes the value.

But here's the thing. This movie is trying to make a statement, and when you have to bend reality past a certain point to make that statement, IMHO it diminishes the value.

The target audience won't think about it or won't really care.

But here's the thing. This movie is trying to make a statement, and when you have to bend reality past a certain point to make that statement, IMHO it diminishes the value.

At what point is reality too bent?

Hmm.. Would he have done the same for somebody elses child ?

That's the really important question. It's not an easily resolvable conundrum, either way.

The target audience won't think about it or won't really care.

A sad truth.

At what point is reality too bent?

I just don't see the authorities giving in to the demands of this man. I don't see him being sentenced to only 5 years of prison when there must have been multiple counts of kidnapping and assault against him. (Not to mention a possible homicide charge)

All this leaving out he deus ex machina of the woman being killed in the car crash just in time to provide a heart for the boy.

I'm pretty sure if someone I loved died because some guy took a hospital hostage to get a free heart for his son that would have otherwise gone to my family member, I'd be pissed off. I wouldn't kill him, but I'd make sure he would rot in prison for as long as possible.

If it was the only way to save my child, then probably.
That being said, it was a good cause but a very bad way.

As for the five year sentance...really, what jury is going to hammer a father who is only trying to help his son live, and at the same time show up the evil corporation?

I just don't see the authorities giving in to the demands of this man. I don't see him being sentenced to only 5 years of prison when there must have been multiple counts of kidnapping and assault against him. (Not to mention a possible homicide charge)

Those all seem to me to be pretty light given the suspension of disbelief one makes in any movie.

haven't seen the movie. What reason did they give for not putting the son on the transplant list?They claimed it was an elective procedure.

Those all seem to me to be pretty light given the suspension of disbelief one makes in any movie.

Granted, but that seems to be enough to prevent a rash of real-life attempts to do the same thing. Thats' all I'm sayin'.

They claimed it was an elective procedure.

And thus required a massive sum of money up front.

Granted, but that seems to be enough to prevent a rash of real-life attempts to do the same thing. Thats' all I'm sayin'.

True. My first thought when I saw the authorities give his son a heart was that wouldn't really happen irl. the same for the light sentence, though I did think he might have gotten off with probation in the movie.

If it was the only way to save my child, then probably.
That being said, it was a good cause but a very bad way.

As for the five year sentance...really, what jury is going to hammer a father who is only trying to help his son live, and at the same time show up the evil corporation?

A jury under orders from a judge appointed by Sarah Palin?

THERE's a horror film.

Blame Rousseau, not me. I didn't created societies and social institutions. That doesn't mean said societies and institutions, and the implied social contract, doesn't exist.

That Rousseau - and you - fling about the term "social contract" doesn't mean it exists. That societies and social institutions exist doesn't mean a "social contract" exists. And I don't care who first coined the bullshit term, I'm gonna blame anyone who also uses it.

According to the society's rules that you are living in, I take, smoking marijuana is an immoral act.

No. It's an illegal act. That's all "society" says about it. "Society" doesn't declare it also to be immoral. And the fact that I live in a "society" doesn't mean I am somehow bound to these fictitious declarations of immorality you believe are implied by the law.

Read twice and think at least three times before jumping out so determined and with bare teeth at people, mmmmk?

Read twice and think at least three times before throwing out a bullshit phrase like "social contract," mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

In any case, you are not making any logical argument

Oh well, you know, society doesn't believe in logic. Hence I am only fulfilling the terms of my social contract. Don't blame me for what I say, blame Rousseau!

As for the five year sentance...really, what jury is going to hammer a father who is only trying to help his son live, and at the same time show up the evil corporation?

A jury who knows someone who's child died because a heart meant for that child was diverted to someone who was not on the transplant list.

A jury under orders from a judge appointed by Sarah Palin?

THERE's a horror film.

Oh, god. That makes the Stephen King book I just read appear tame...
*shudder*

A jury who knows someone who's child died because a heart meant for that child was diverted to someone who was not on the transplant list.

Granted. But what are the chances of that?

What is it that the road to hell is paved with? Good intentions, exactly.

John Q. actions were fundamentally immoral. The net damage he did, cannot be justified by the best-case scenario for the end result.

I'm pretty sure if someone I loved died because some guy took a hospital hostage to get a free heart for his son that would have otherwise gone to my family member, I'd be pissed off. I wouldn't kill him, but I'd make sure he would rot in prison for as long as possible.
That's why I said that, if John had killed himself and provided his own damn heart (rather than stealing one), it would have been acceptable. Or, more acceptable; that is to say as acceptable as kidnapping an entire emergency room can be. Whatever.

That Rousseau - and you - fling about the term "social contract" doesn't mean it exists. That societies and social institutions exist doesn't mean a "social contract" exists. And I don't care who first coined the bullshit term, I'm gonna blame anyone who also uses it.

Then you are gonna keep being a moronic idiot. Good luck and good night. Go and flamebait, or even then, flame, someone else more prone to play the tonguedick waving game.

No. It's an illegal act. That's all "society" says about it. "Society" doesn't declare it also to be immoral. And the fact that I live in a "society" doesn't mean I am somehow bound to these fictitious declarations of immorality you believe are implied by the law.

You seem to have problems regarding the definition of "moral" and morals". Laws are the direct expression of society's morals. I don't give a cucumber's skin if you like it or not, it's still that way. You break the law of your society, you break the morals of that society, you are being immoral according to said codes, and that's it. Present something as an argument with a coherent semantics and stop spewing offal with your fingers.

Read twice and think at least three times before throwing out a bullshit phrase like "social contract," mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

Had enough time for that during my ethics classes, and why not?, my entire univeristy education. You should think about attending yours twice, ok? It's a bullshit phrase with more validity in any reasonable circle than anything you have contributed with this thread so far.

Granted. But what are the chances of that?
... maybe not as likely as we fear, but more than we know. :(

That's why I said that, if John had killed himself and provided his own damn heart (rather than stealing one), it would have been acceptable. Or, more acceptable; that is to say as acceptable as kidnapping an entire emergency room can be. Whatever.

that would make for a better drama...

Since he can't bring himself to suicide, he creates a situation where the cops are forced to intervine and even shoot to kill. his last words to one of his hostages (maybe someone sympathetic to his problem) is to use his heart to save his child.

He had a good reason to do what he did. but that reason doesn't excuse his actions. if he held the docs and nurses hostage (as in they were stuck in the room that he was in) then he also endangered other patients in that hospital.
By holding every nurse and doctor in the hospital hostage? That's an awful big room.:rolleyes:

By holding every nurse and doctor in the hospital hostage? That's an awful big room.:rolleyes:

dunno if you're aware, but each floor of the hospital is specialized. one floor can be the ICU while others for Patients with bone marrow problems, while others handle cancer treatment, so Docs travel between floors to their patients. so if one doctor is held hostage for hours, he won't be seeing his patients, nor will he be doing that surgery that's been scheduled. finding a replacement doc is time consuming.

alot of nurses are also not just stationed on one floor. many 'float' around and thus are needed elsewhere.

add to that the specalists like respetory therapists, cardiac specialists, Anesthesiologists, etc... and you'll realize that John Q put more than just those in that one little room/section at risk.

While what he did was immoral and improbable, I think the point of the movie is more around condemning the US healthcare system. In Australia, we have universal healthcare (you do wait a long time for some things though) in situations like this, so that people can get the necessary procedures based on need, not income.

dunno if you're aware, but each floor of the hospital is specialized. one floor can be the ICU while others for Patients with bone marrow problems, while others handle cancer treatment, so Docs travel between floors to their patients. so if one doctor is held hostage for hours, he won't be seeing his patients, nor will he be doing that surgery that's been scheduled. finding a replacement doc is time consuming.

alot of nurses are also not just stationed on one floor. many 'float' around and thus are needed elsewhere.

add to that the specalists like respetory therapists, cardiac specialists, Anesthesiologists, etc... and you'll realize that John Q put more than just those in that one little room/section at risk.
Each floor consists of a single room?
Or are you putting forth the assertion that not only are there only enough nurses and doctors on each floor to fit in a single room, but they are the only ones of their profession that ever work on that floor? Are they cyborgs?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251160/

In the movie John Q. John Q's son needs a new heart, however his insurance won't cover the procedure, and it'll cost $75,000 to even put his son on the Transplant list. So what does John do, he holds the hospital hostage until his son is put on the list.

Would you consider his ideas and actions moral? Why or why not?

While I think he has the right idea, his son should at least be put on the list, his actions are immoral. Because it's not fair to the doctors or nurses to be held hostage, when they're just doing their job. So, right idea, wrong plan of actions.

His actions are immoral, according to academic ethics, if he breaks a moral code or a code of ethics. A moral person is one that follows his established codes, while someone who breaks them is immoral.

Are we speaking about John Q's personal code of morals or the social moral codes of his society?

He signed the social contract of his society, in this case the code of the United States of America, just by living on it, and then he broke it when he decided to break the laws established by said code, that forbids kidnapping and are indeed the representation of said code. So, in the case of social codes, his actions were immoral. He decided to live in a society, and then he broke its established rules, labeling him as immoral.

About his personal code of morals, that establishes the well being of his son over anything else, even above the rules established by his society, so he was indeed pretty moral, he followed his own core of beliefs to the end.

The question is, are social codes of morals or ethics superior to the individual ones? To that one we can find arguments and reasons defending each possible posture, and will eventually enter the field of ideology and politics, without reaching an agreement. It is expected, as wiser and more educated people have tried to reach said agreement in the past, and haven't succeeded.


Ultimately, we must ask the question of where one's priorities should lie. What should be first? His duty to his family? His duty to protect his son? To follow the laws of his country? To protect the most people possible?

And when we have answered that, we must also ask at what point your actions to fulfill that moral obligation can no longer be justified.

And only then can we ask the most important question of all: "Could Geniasis be any more pretentious?"

What, exactly, does one plan if the staff refuse to do the transplant? Execute one hostage every fifteen minutes until they agree?

So no. Not moral.

He was acting morally because he was doing his duty to his family. Family comes first. Everything else is a secondary concern.

While what he did was immoral and improbable, I think the point of the movie is more around condemning the US healthcare system. In Australia, we have universal healthcare (you do wait a long time for some things though) in situations like this, so that people can get the necessary procedures based on need, not income.
That might have been the original intent of the movie, but the happy ending sabotages such intent by belittling real problems and moral dilemmas with a cheap, feel good conclusion.
I had the same gripe against Blood Diamond, where the overall message was "The trade in illegal diamonds in Africa is violent, pointless and destroys families. Sure, it worked out great for Solomon and his family (which wasn't destroyed), who are now wealthy citizens of the developed world rather than dirt farmers, but that doesn't matter."

It would be a much better movie if he failed. The need for feel good endings, even in social commentary movies sucks.

That might have been the original intent of the movie, but the happy ending sabotages such intent by belittling real problems and moral dilemmas with a cheap, feel good conclusion.
I had the same gripe against Blood Diamond, where the overall message was "The trade in illegal diamonds in Africa is violent, pointless and destroys families. Sure, it worked out great for Solomon and his family (which wasn't destroyed), who are now wealthy citizens of the developed world rather than dirt farmers, but that doesn't matter."

I don't disagree with you there. I think that is why I prefer movies from Australia that deal with social issues, since it is not so much driven by that need to conform to the masses' expectation. I also didn't mind Charlie Wilson's War, since I thought that ended on a rather bittersweet and telling note.

Each floor consists of a single room?
Or are you putting forth the assertion that not only are there only enough nurses and doctors on each floor to fit in a single room, but they are the only ones of their profession that ever work on that floor? Are they cyborgs?

Hmmm. did I say Floor or Room? perhaps you should read my posts again.

or are you trying to say that if there is a hostage situation in one room, the floor itself would still carry on as if nothing is happening?

I can tell you if there is a hostage situation, the floor will be cleared, patients would be moved and moving patients is not always safe for them. Which goes to my comment about each floor being specialised. heck, depending on the census of the hospital, you may have critical patients being forced to be kept in the hallways. not a safe situation for the patients.

so again, holding even one room hostage affects the entire floor/area and that puts other patients at risk.

you'll also note the post where I said I didn't see the movie. but the op isn't focused on the movie's situation, but the character's actions.