The Verdict screen-play - Research Paper Example

?Introduction Sacrifice for the greater good is a concept that has emerged through centuries of human history. Any investigation of it from the contemporary realities cannot forget to take into account the statement of Umberto Eco (2001), “At times ethics itself can accept exceptions to the prohibition on killing, just as the collective sensibility can accept horrors and sacrifices that guarantee a greater good” (p.6). The screen-play, “The Verdict” can be viewed as a typical example of this in terms story content, motivation, characterization and historical setting. This paper will look at the theoretical underpinnings of the notion, sacrificing for the greater good, in relation with the screenplay “The verdict.” It will also be explored how this plays a role in the changing of ethics in the main character of Frank Galvin the primary attorney representing Debra Anne Kaye, who is currently in a state of a permanent coma. Debra Anne Kaye is brain dead due to the alleged administration of an improper anesthetic. Sacrificing for the greater good, also known as utilitarianism, has been criticized for looking only at the results of actions, and disregarding the desires or intentions that motivate them. Intentions seem somehow important. For example, it is undesirable to call an action intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good, "the greater good". Similarly, it is equally undesirable to call an action though intended to cause good but inadvertently causes harm, “the greater good.” It is in the first meeting with Galvin and the Bishop (who by way of his position as the head of the archdiocese, heads the hospital that mis-treated Kaye; the hospital is run by the archdiocese) that the audience clearly realizes that the major theme of the story is going to be what to choose- the so called greater good or the ethically, morally and politically right position. It is through the transformation of Galvin that this philosophical conflict unfolds. Galvin goes in to meet the Bishop with an inclination to get some compensatory amount for his client and through that acquire himself a decent commission on that. But even at that moment, it can be seen that the question that Dr. Gruber (the doctor who wanted to testify in favor of Kaye) had asked him was haunting him. After telling Galvin that he wanted to testify because he wanted “to do right”, Gruber had asked him, “Isn’t that why you’re doing it?”. This simple question was actually a leading question into the contradiction involved in making certain moral choices out of selfish motives or out of convenience. When the Bishop starts speaking to Galvin in their meeting next day, Galvin suddenly finds himself before the reality of the situation. The Bishop is seeking to settle the matter outside the court by giving compensation to Kaye, which he justifies in the greater good of preserving the reputation of his hospital. Two questions that Galvin asks are the keys to challenging the very notion of such a greater good as is presented by the Bishop. The first question is, “How did you settle on the amount?”, which actually is a pointer to the truth that nobody has the moral right to put a price on the life of a human being. The second question, though directly asked in the text, can be framed from the logic of the total situation as, ‘is it morally right to suppress truth?’, the truth being that a woman was killed by a mistake made by two doctors. There are several aspects of the story that has to be considered when the contradiction between the ‘greater good’ proposed by the Bishop and the pure moral truth or ‘good’ that is upheld by Galvin is examined. These aspects can be, 1) it is a Christian religious head who is proposing such a solution. But Christianity is a religion that claims to be morally upright and humane; 2) It is a Bishop who is expected to stand up for all such values, who is making this proposition; 3) what is being fashioned by the Bishop as greater good will actually subvert an existing legal system, which gives another definition for truth and justice; 4) a healthy woman lost her life which goes morally unaccounted for, before this greater good; 5) the two doctors who actually took her life, will go unpunished and will also continue to treat more patients, and might go on making the same mistakes again; 6) it is out of a consideration of convenience rather than conviction that friends of Kaye are supporting an out of court settlement; and 7) Kaye is speechless so that she cannot tell what she wants, and this adds on to the moral responsibility of those who make decisions on behalf of her. It is against all these odds that the ‘greater good’, will be upheld, if Galvin agrees to take the compensation for his client. This discussion is continued in the text, in the next sequence when Galvin talks to his friend, Mickey. Mickey is asking Galvin, what is the purpose of helping someone who is already dead. This is an argument that can turn the dices in favor of the hospital, which if preserved without any bad reputation could help thousands of patients. But here, the question that arises is whether ‘good’ has a quantitative standard of measurement. To be clearer, the question is, can the life of a person be considered less valuable as against the lives of a hundred or thousand persons. This question is also closely related to any debate on greater good. It is at this moment that Galvin with great clarity puts the whole debate in one sentence. He says, “They killed her. And they’re trying to buy it”. This simple sentence an effect which could nullify the very debate of greater good and suggest that there is no such thing as greater good and there is only what is good and bad. It is also reminded by the conversation between Galvin and Mickey that the moral position for justice does not alter just because the victim of injustice is dead. This is why Galvin understands his own version of greater good in standing up for the almost-dead Kaye. He then realizes that if he agrees with the others who want an out of the court settlement, he will be a party in surpassing the obligations, roles, and responsibilities of doctors, attorneys, priests, and the friends and family members of the victim. As the plot unfolds further, the farcical nature of the so called ‘greater good’ is further revealed. This is seen in the expressions of Concannon, who is pleading the case for the archdiocese and the two doctors who are accused in the case; this is revealed when Concannon says, “not only that we win the case, but that we win the case so that it’s seen that the attack on these men and this institution was a rank of obscenity”. Now the underlying philosophical debate on greater good sheds its frills and appears in its true colors, true politics. The pressure that the Judge and Concannon puts on Galvin for an out of the court settlement is the second instance where the pretension of a greater good is kept aside. During the trial, the hospital and the accused doctors are showered with awards and honors, which the viewer of the film has all rights to doubt as some crisis-management exercise if not a total white wash. From all these developments, actually the debate on greater good is sidestepped by those who need it even. They do not even put up an effective argument based on that. Instead of facing the trial on such a strong base, they are trying to get around the whole issue in easier ways. So it becomes clear that whoever is professing the greater good in this story are not themselves convinced about that argument, and hence they are looking for other safer alternatives. Even the judge seems to be inclined to support the accused as is seen when he dismisses the witness, Dr. Thompson without letting Galvin to ask his questions. In this way the whole issue acquires the image of a conspiracy, where again the question of greater good has no space even, whatsoever. The character of Laura is yet another evidence to prove that what is presented in the form of greater good by the Bishop is actually good only for the rich, the powerful. To win the case, Laura is employed as a spy on Galvin by the opposing council. In continuation of the unethical way in which the whole issue was handled by the accused, Laura gives in valuable secrets of Galvin to his opponents, information if kept secret, might have helped him in winning the case. Laura is presented as an idealistic legal worker who is persuaded to act as a spy for the corporate firm in the name of a greater good— i.e., so that the corporate firm will have money to provide free legal services for the poor. In the process, she betrays herself, her friend, and justice, and so suffers an inevitable collapse. Implicit in Laura's experience as portrayed in the film is the corollary presented by Galvin's own prior (and parallel) idealism and fall from grace. And Laura’s experience once again reveals how the notion of greater good can end up as horrors that destroy the entire gamut of values and morality. When the crucial document turning the whole case in favor of Kaye’s case is shown to the court by Kathy, for a moment, Concannon is seen to realize the difference between a truth and untruth but it is only momentary. Finally, when the story ends, there is a ray of hope for Galvin’s client as the jurists are inclined to decide for giving a greater compensation to Kaye. Here, though the notion of greater good stays mainstream to the space and time depicted by this narrative, it is the moral values and truth as represented by Galvin that wins the war, eventually. This story is a typical example of the devaluation of beliefs as is described by Michel de Certeau (year) when he said, we are brought to believe certain things, like eat all your veggies they will make you strong or you should not kill another or you should trust all religious leaders (p.---). He has also said, we are brought that way and as we grow up we learn that these beliefs/values are not true because not everyone follows the same beliefs and values (Michel de Certeau, year, p.---). Here what is under such scrutiny is the notion that church and religious leaders are the most righteous of our society. But through this narrative the author has attempted, rather unknowingly, to transport the belief in church to a belief in the modern institutions of law and modern sensibilities of justice, as is deliberated in the theorization of Michel de Certeau (year, p.11). This has become a necessity of time because the belief in the church has already been getting polluted through a series of aberrations made by the church as an institution (Michel de Certeau). The credibility loss associated with that pollution is what reflects on transportation also, as a disbelief in the legal system (Michel de Certeau, p.11-12). But what acts as a favorable factor to retain the diminishing credibility and belief is the process of rationalization, a tool specific to modern societies (Michel de Certeau, year, p.12). Though rationalization may seem to be contradictory to belief, this is the case, and, the belief is getting passed on to the political systems like rule of law, from religion (Michel de Certeau, year, p.14). And in this way, the new political systems, including the rule of law, has become the religion of the citizen as delineated by Rousseau (qtd. in Michel de Certeau, year, p.14). References Eco, Umberto, (2001) Five moral pieces, London: Secker & Warburg. Read More