John Q Movie Analysis

Film Overview

The Movie John Q starred Denzel Washington, James Wood, and Duval Robert. The movie tells the story of John Archibald, a factory worker whose son got diagnosed with an enlarged heart condition. Having worked for the factory for 15 years, John and his family were covered in the insurance cover provided by the factory. Unfortunately, while seeking a heart transplant, he was surprised to be informed that the insurance could not cover the heart transplant needed by his nine-year-old son to survive. He was listed as a cash patient, and the hospital required him to pay $250,000 for his son’s name to be listed on the donor list. Unfortunately, despite selling all his property and including his life savings, he could only raise $22,000, which, according to the hospital management, was not enough to secure surgery for his son.

Mr. John had put in a lot of effort looking for money to help secure surgery for his son. Unfortunately, he could not raise enough to meet the demands of the hospital. A plan from the hospital to release his son due to delays in payment of the required thirty percent deposit prompted him to take hospital employees and patients hostage. This was meant to compel the hospital to enlist his son in the donor’s list for a heart that he needed to live. Unfortunately, despite this, the authorities refused to list his son to the donor list. Fearing for the death of his son, he chose to kill himself to donate his heart to the son. However, a heart matching that of his son was found, and the transplant was affected hence saving his life. He portrayed the great love and leadership of a father who would do anything to meet the needs of his family. His fearless and ambitious personality was showcased with the decision he made of breaking the law to ensure his son was alive and safe ( Cassavetes, 2002).

Legal and Ethical Issues

One of the ethical issues evident in the movie is the prioritization of money over life. Despite the dire need for a heart transplant by Mr. John Q’s son who was facing death, the hospital kept insisting for payment from Mr. John before his son would be included in the organ list. A man had no money and tried to plead with the authorities; unfortunately, they could not help him.

The corrupt dealings of the insurance companies and the doctors are also evident in the movie. Mr. John had paid HMO insurance premiums for more than 16 years, but when he needed their service the most, they failed to offer him the help they needed. The insurance companies have to safeguard the needs of the people, and this should be done irrespective of the money someone has. It is also unethical to note that doctors were paid huge sums to give wrong recommendations so that patients would not get admitted for conditions compelling them to pay more. This was an intentional mistake made undermining the significance of human life ( Cassavetes, 2002).

The movie also depicts the failure of the government to safeguard the needs of its people. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure its citizens access medical care cheaply and also to regulate the actions of the hospitals that may jeopardize the safety of its citizens. Unfortunately, evident from the movie, health is left independently to the hospitals, and it does not seem to care about the problems the people are facing in accessing these services. In another instance, the government goes ahead to plan a shoot to kill order, yet they had not exhausted all the negotiation options they had.

Is healthcare a right or privilege?

Several arguments have been put forward on whether healthcare should be considered a right or privilege. Every human being has a right, and everything that poses a threat to their life should be taken care of to ensure they continue to enjoy their life. This is the responsibility of the government to ensure its citizens can access healthcare any time they needed the services. This has been attributed to the fact that they pay taxes, and the government is expected to offer these services.

According to Naden (2010), healthcare is considered a privilege since this has not been ratified into the constitution as a right. Article 12 only recognizes the right to enjoy physical and mental health, which in this case refers to liberty, happiness, and life. It does not whatsoever mention thriving through the provision of proper healthcare services. Article 25 similarly mentions the right to standard living, which may involve healthcare must not have given a clear definition of what standard life is in this case. Based on the above definitions, it can be argued that healthcare should only be considered as a privilege and not a right, as Mr. John Q may have argued in most of the movie. It is, however, important if this would be made a right to help improve the lives of the people, especially the very poor.

Should a person’s income (or social class) determine the quality of healthcare they receive?

Despite working for many years as a factory worker, Mr. Q and his family struggled to lead a normal life due to the low income. This was evident when he was unable to pay for his son’s hospital transplant charges even after selling all his belongings, including his life savings. The hospital was very discriminative when they failed to render his son special health services based on lack of money, a clear indication of discrimination against the people with less income.

A person’s income or social income should not be a determinant of the nature of healthcare services they get. The situation these people is not their own making but because of nature. Being poor is not a choice, and the health provider should understand health is crucial to every human being poor or rich. The income of an individual should not determine the quality of healthcare services; instead, the providers should prioritize helping the people to recover and lead a normal life.

In the movie, Mr. John Q’s son is discriminated against by accessing high-quality healthcare services due to the lack of money. His father was a poor man, and the hospital felt that he could not pay for high-quality services for his son. He was compelled to use force for him to access better healthcare for his son.

Was John Q’s punishment just?

In every decision or step any individual takes, it must be guided by the laws of the land. No action, no matter the result, can be justified as long as it does not adhere to the laws of the country. In the steps towards securing healthcare services for his son, he broke several rules. The first one being taking hostage of hospital patients and staff against their will. This was against their rights, especially considering some of the patients wanted to leave the room. By holding them against their will, John Q broke various laws of the constitution, such as the freedom for movement, which was against their rights.

He put some of the people in under a lot of distress, considering some of them got very scared of the gun. This is evident with the fact that most of them hid under the tables with some far off to the walls to keep off from a man holding a gun. The doctor also expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the orders by Mr. John Q, but due to the threats from the man holding a gun, he had to follow his demands. The decision to charge him only for undermining the right to freedom for the people was the right decision in this case. The other decision to acquit him of his charges of criminality was the right decision considering he did not display any acts of violence against the hostages.

References

Cassavetes, N. (Director). (2002). John Q [Motion Picture].

Naden, C. J. (2010). Health Care: A Right Or a Privilege? Marshall Cavendish.