A film which causes genuine interest and concern to erupt in regard of the themes treated in it. Unable to sustain a high action level expected from a "medical thriller" kind of film, this movie raises ethical dilemmas of a doctor from a very concerned point of view. The ethical dilemmas are the subject of the film, and the handling of those in the focus of the expected action-thriller, in my opinion, is the right decision.
Does a doctor have the right to prefer to handle a patient first, albeit the (relative) severity of his condition? (In this case, prefer handling a police officer instead of a maniac who has been threatening people with a gun in a bus..?) Does anyone have the right to prefer one man's life over another's? Is it possible to evaluate someone's life and compare it to another's? Is it possible to end the life of a person who is willing to die? (Euthanasia.) Is it possible to kill one man to save hundreds and thousands of others? Is it possible to do ANYTHING so cancer disappears "the next day"?
In the movie, answers are not given. The ethical discussion of the above dilemmas is subject to the spectator's jurisdiction. And even if the people who die for the entire mankind are heroes, we don't have the right to choose that for them. This is the only assumption of the film about the subject -- for homeless men in New York, which can save other lives and return millions of people the ability to walk, to eat -- from their paralyzed state.
The extension that can be made is as follows: if a man wants to die, and by killing that man hundreds, thousands or millions of people will be saved, does ANYONE have the right to kill that person? Does the man have the right to "play God"? This is an issue that is not a subject in the film, but this extension is definitely an issue that has a direct connection and influence on the spectator's eventual evaluation of the film.
The right to choose to kill people to save others is not in our hands. Shall it remain so and is it justice -- it is not we who can judge.
Does a doctor have the right to prefer to handle a patient first, albeit the (relative) severity of his condition? (In this case, prefer handling a police officer instead of a maniac who has been threatening people with a gun in a bus..?) Does anyone have the right to prefer one man's life over another's? Is it possible to evaluate someone's life and compare it to another's? Is it possible to end the life of a person who is willing to die? (Euthanasia.) Is it possible to kill one man to save hundreds and thousands of others? Is it possible to do ANYTHING so cancer disappears "the next day"?
In the movie, answers are not given. The ethical discussion of the above dilemmas is subject to the spectator's jurisdiction. And even if the people who die for the entire mankind are heroes, we don't have the right to choose that for them. This is the only assumption of the film about the subject -- for homeless men in New York, which can save other lives and return millions of people the ability to walk, to eat -- from their paralyzed state.
The extension that can be made is as follows: if a man wants to die, and by killing that man hundreds, thousands or millions of people will be saved, does ANYONE have the right to kill that person? Does the man have the right to "play God"? This is an issue that is not a subject in the film, but this extension is definitely an issue that has a direct connection and influence on the spectator's eventual evaluation of the film.
The right to choose to kill people to save others is not in our hands. Shall it remain so and is it justice -- it is not we who can judge.