Reflection On John Q 492m3i

Jennifer Mae C. Heredia 2A – MT

PHL 5 Mr. Ramiscal “JOHN Q” MOVIE ASSESSMENT

1. Give your honest moral assessment regarding John Q’s action. My honest moral assessment regarding John Q’s action would be to see it as his ultimate reaction towards society’s neglect of his plea for help to save his son. This reaction is coupled by his rational and irrational methods, first exhausting all rational and sensible ways to come up to in order to get his son on the recipient’s list. After trying everything in order to adapt to all external factors hindering his objective, he then took matters into his own hands that is by turning towards violence to get to with his negotiators. I think John Q’s actions reflect what a father would ultimately do for his son. It shows his deep ion towards his love for his son, and with that as his drive, I can say that he only hostaged and attempted to kill innocent people out of extreme frustration and desperation. But on another note, tolerating this kind of action is giving way to the animal aspect within us, glorifying violence for the ultimate need for survival. And so for me in the end, John Q would still have to face certain consequences, considering the way he executed his good intentions with bad action. 2. Give your educated Christian moral principle regarding John Q’s action. Looking at it through the Christian viewpoint, certain moral principles can be applied. One implication would be to say that John Q committed an imperfect voluntary action due to impairment on his will, being under the influence of fear and so acting with full attention but with imperfect consent. This impairment on his will roots from the fear of knowing that his son is on the verge of death, helpless and defenseless while waiting for a possible miracle. Seeing himself able towards his son’s life, he was forced to take matters into his own hands. And then this sense of responsibility further contributed to the built up of his consequent ion, being deliberately aroused by his will to ensure the survival of his son regardless of the consequences that will be imposed on him afterwards. With this stated, John Q becomes able for what he did, being found guilty of kidnapping as he faced the law just after his son’s operation. But the degree towards his ability lessen with the impairment on his will being considered, as depicted in the movie where he was judged not guilty of attempted murder and armed criminal action.

Jennifer Mae C. Heredia 2A – MT

PHL 5 Mr. Ramiscal

3. Pick one character and identify his/her ethical moral principle. Rebecca Payne is the director of Hope Memorial Hospital where Mike Archibald received treatment. She discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Archibald their options regarding Mike’s situation, whether they’d rely on a very much expensive yet unsure heart transplant or if they’d just accept the fact that Mike would ultimately die, least provide him the medication that he’ll need so to feel as comfortable as possible. She also informed John and Denise that their insurance carrier did not contain provisions for transplant surgery, and that they’ll have to secure a down payment of $75,000 before Mike could be on the recipient’s list. Following this, John consulted with his insurance and he filed an appeal, which they approved. When John showed this to Rebecca, she told him that he filed the wrong paperwork and that he needed to file a grievance instead of an appeal. Later on, Rebecca decided to put Mike’s name on the list, despite the fact that she did not receive the full down payment of $75,000. During the first part of the film, one can see the black and white perspective emphasized by Rebecca’s lack of empathy for Mike and his parents wherein she saw the situation as only having a one-sided means to an ends, reinstating the need for money and power to compensate for the services in line with one’s duties and responsibilities. She was seen to have this materialistic view, refusing to help due to technicalities imposed by the Archibald’s limited health plan. She also reiterated the fact that there are over 50 million people in the country without medical insurance, imposing that one cannot do anything about it since it’s in the Constitution and thereby regarded rules and regulations as the ultimate standard for one’s roles, responsibilities, and limitations. With this, she is said to practice deontological ethics for her duty-based service, restricted by her role in the society, and prioritizes the wealthiest and most powerful who are more capable to pay for their services and execute their duties.