Anousha and Sabrena are seated on stage as a short clip is played on
the projector screen, showing the introduction of a news broadcast.
Sabrena: Good afternoon, I am Sabrena Lee.
Anousha: And I am Anousha Gilroy.
Together: And you are tuned into todays new broadcast.
Anousha: Our main stories tonight:
Finding Grace and Whose Life is it Anyway are both texts which mobilise the discourse of Disablement, however, they each construct two completely different views. Just how do they do it? We get down and dirty discussing the effects in which the attitudes, values and beliefs inherent and the discourses mobilised in the texts position the readers and viewers to side with a particular opinion over another.
Sabrena: In addition, a live debate will be taking place about the controversial issue of euthanasia, or suicide, whichever way you look at it, and who has the right to make the decision concerning whether a person lives or dies. However, firstly, we will cross over to Sam French, who is currently at the National Library of Brisbane.
(The tables are moved apart to signify a scene change)
Anousha: This is an outrage! I am reporting live from the National Library of Brisbane where a serious felony has been committed. All copies of the novel, Finding Grace have been stolen, (Holds up novel) except for this one. But why, you ask, would anyone want to steal this book? Let me tell you.
The novel Finding Grace, by Alyssa Brugman is the story of a brain damaged woman named Grace and her path to recovery. The novel is viewed through the perspective of Graces new carer, a teenage girl named Rachel. This representation of Rachel contributes to the foregrounding of certain attitudes, values and beliefs which construct the dominant discourse of Disablement which is evident throughout the novel. Other prominent discourses which are mobilized in the text are relationships and personal growth. The discourse of Disability is mobilized throughout the text by the character Grace, who is diagnosed with severe brain damage. The novel values disabled people with high respect and as the title of the novel suggests, the story is about discovering who Grace is and about the normal life that she had led before. This facet creates the belief that disabled people should be viewed upon as normal people, with feelings and personalities similar to others.
The discourse of relationships is significant in linking the whole novel together. It is mobilized through many different people and there are a number of different types or relationships. The key relationship in the novel is that of Grace and Rachel. It begins as a carer and a seemingly brain dead woman, when Rachel thinks of it as babysitting. But evolves into a friendship when Rachel begins to realize Grace is a normal person. She begins to feel a connection with her and to genuinely care for her. The discourse of personal growth is mobilized through Grace and Rachel. It is interrelated with the discourse of relationships as it through these that the progression occurs. Grace starts off as nearly a vegetable, but as she becomes comfortable and familiar with her relationship with Rachel, her state of mind improves and the reader begins to see her react and respond to different situations. Rachels relationship with Grace helps her to mature and discover who she really is.
It is evident that the viewpoints of Rachel and Mr Preston have been foregrounded throughout the text. This privileges their view that disabled people are human beings just like everyone else. The viewpoints of Anthony Preston have been marginalized, by doing so, he is unable to defend himself against accusations or provide his point of view about Graces current situation. Due to Graces condition, she is incapable of speaking; however, she is not marginalized throughout the text because the reader must rely on other characters opinions about her by the viewpoints which are privileged throughout the text. There is no use of binary opposition or intertextuality throughout this novel as no references to other specific texts have been made.
The construction of the novel positions the reader to establish that Grace, like other disabled people, was and still is a person with genuine feelings, emotions and a past similar to others. Someone who may be resistant to the novel would be an unhappy carer or relative as they do not share the same viewpoints as Rachel and Mr Preston. A person who is disgusted by disabled people would also be resistant towards the text as they may feel uncomfortable reading the novel since a major issue evident in text is disability. Another reader who may not agree with the text is a person who is similar to the character of Anthony Preston, who treats women like trophies, as the readers may not agree with the novels portrayal of his character.
Oh my, this novel really is something. No wonder all the copies have been stolen. This has been Sam French, reporting live from the National Library of Brisbane.
(The tables are moved back into the middle as they were at the start)
Sabrena: Thank you for that report, Sam.
Anousha: We will now crossover to the Prince Alexander Hospital where the reporter, Jenny Allen, is waiting with another of tonights reports.
(The tables are moved apart)
Sabrena: Good afternoon, I am currently standing in front of the Brisbane Lyric Theatre, where a protest has broken out concerning the recent release of the play, Whose Life is it Anyway. Ever since the play has first performance, there has been ongoing opposition for the support of Euthanasia displayed in the play.
Whose Life is it Anyway?, by Brian Clark, is a play which thoroughly discusses the issue of euthanasia and ones personal choice to commit suicide. In Clarks construction of the play, he mobilises the dominant discourse of Disablement. There are two prominent discourses which help construct our view of Disablement, such as personal integrity and the legal discourse. These discourses are mobilised in the text to foreground certain attitudes, values and beliefs.
Throughout the play, the character of Ken Harrison predominantly mobilises the discourse of personal integrity which is also valorised throughout the play. Ken displays a strong sense of moral integrity through his perseverance, determination and stubbornness in his need to commit suicide. Despite the opposing opinions of those surrounding him, he values his dignity and believes that dying by his own will is a question of dignity. In Clarks construction of the play, he also primarily draws upon the legal discourse. Throughout the play, the law is foregrounded as being excessive and inconsiderate to the feelings and conditions of the victims of disablement. The discourse of law values pro-life and opposes euthanasia. This creates a barrier between Ken and his choice of committing suicide. It is mobilised by the characters of Mr Hill, the judge and Dr Emerson, whose attitude is that there is no personal choice because Kens life was determined by the judge of a trial proceeding. As Ken claims, the cruelty doesnt reside in saving someone or allowing them to die. It resides in the fact that the choice is removed from the man concerned.
There are two predominant viewpoints which have been represented throughout the play. These consist of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death and Dr Emerson along with those who oppose his death. Ken Harrison feels that he can choose whether or not he lives or dies. Since Ken is paralysed, he can only use his brain and is therefore so dependent on the help of others and machines, he believes that he is basically dead. Since he values his independence, his attitude is that if he can not be independent, there is no point in living. He also values his dignity and would rather die with his dignity intact. However, opposing this viewpoint is Dr Emerson and those who oppose Kens death. These characters believe in pro-life which is the act of maintaining life. Since Dr Emerson values his job and the life of his patients, his attitude is that a doctor cannot accept the choice for death as hes committed to life.
It is evident that the viewpoints of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death have been foregrounded throughout the text whereas the viewpoints of Dr Emerson and those who oppose Kens death have been marginalised. This is evident throughout the play as Dr Emersons viewpoints are not taken into heavy consideration by others. There are less scenes which outline Dr Emersons viewpoints compared to those of Ken Harrison. In addition Dr Emersons character is portrayed as having a cold personality and also being inconsiderate towards the feelings of his patients. This is achieved through the use of binary opposition, which works to privilege one viewpoint while creating the other as inconsiderate, excessive and wrong. This is evident in the text through the complications present in the plot and the representations of the characters. The predominant binary opposition which is constructed is personal freedom versus legal constraint. These binaries intersect and shape meaning throughout the text, therefore utilising ideological work to position the audience to value Ken Harrisons viewpoints over the others. Even though there were no references to other specific texts, the concept of intertextuality was introduced as throughout the play, the issue of Euthanasia must be understood. The reader must have an awareness of the continuous debate of Euthanasia around the world and the strong opposition that the law in many countries hold against it, as well as the large number of protests and uproar this results from. In addition, to completely understand the text, the reader must have a thorough insight about the type of disability Ken has and the way that it affects the person concerned. The various methods which have been discussed are utilised to create ideological work by foregrounding the viewpoints of Ken Harrison and those in favour of his death rather than the viewpoints of Dr Emerson and those who oppose Kens death.
Despite the ideological work used to position the reader into agreeing with Ken Harrison and the viewpoints which are in favour of his death, there may be readers who agree or resist the text due to past experiences and circumstances. A resistant reader may be a person who believes in pro-life, specifically doctors or those who work in medical fields as their jobs are to save lives. Those who represent authority, such as politicians and leaders of countries who oppose Euthanasia may also resist the text as they may view the play to set an inappropriate example. Furthermore, a person who has overcome a disability in the past may be a resistant reader as they may hold the view that Ken should not give up his life but continue to hope for recovery.
Well there it is. This is the play which has caused numerous protests such as this one going on behind me. Clearly there are many facets of the play which are to be considered. This is Jenny Allen, reporting live from the Brisbane Lyric Theatre.
(The tables are moved back together into the middle of the stage)
Anousha: Thank you for that insightful report, Jenny.
Sabrena: Talk about a controversy.
Anousha: Sabrena, what are your opinions on this issue?
Sabrena: Well Anousha, I believe in freedom of speech and allowing everyone to stand up for what they believe in. Even though I have never been disabled, whilst I was reading the play, I could understand why Ken Harrison felt for the need of Euthanasia. If a patient has an appropriate basis of reasons of why they do not want to live anymore, then I believe their opinion should be taken into consideration, just as it was done in the play. It is understandable that doctors value pro-life, as do many others however I believe that if someone is as disabled as Ken Harrison where they are no longer able to perform even basic functions so their own dignity is lost then with their consent, I believe Euthanasia would be the right thing to do.
Anousha: Oh ok, I see. That is quite reasonable.
Sabrena: The issue of Euthanasia is dominantly foregrounded throughout the play, Whose Life is it Anyway as the main character, Ken, fights for his right to have a dignified death. Euthanasia means good or happy death and is divided into two types: active and passive.
(OHT of definitions is displayed)
Active Euthanasia is defined as the act of killing a sick person, or performing actions which make their death occur more quickly.
Anousha: Passive Euthanasia occurs when someone fails to do something which would keep the sick person alive. In the play, passive euthanasia is present as Ken is granted the right to be discharged from the hospital where he will be without medical attention, therefore, allowing himself to die. Let us see a scene from the play that demonstrates this.
(Anousha and Sabrena act out scene from play)
Sabrena Mr Hill Anousha Dr Emerson
Mr Hill: Mr Harrison wishes to be discharged from hospital. Will you please make the necessary arrangements?
Dr Emerson: No.
Mr Hill: May I ask why not?
Dr Emerson: Because Mr Harrison is incapable of living outside that hospital and it is my duty as a doctor to preserve life.
(Anousha and Sabrena end scene and continue with discussion)
Anousha: Most religions do not oppose passive euthanasia because believe that it is
not morally wrong to allow people to die when they have no hope of recovering; however, Christianity believes that suicide should never be permitted. Instead, it views suicide as an attempt to use a power that belongs only to God.
(OHT of quote is displayed on projector)
Sabrena: Active Euthanasia is viewed differently. As expressed in a 1979 official report of the Lutheran church, It is within Gods purview alone to decide on the moment when the individual is to share that life which lies beyond death. Their attitude is that no one other than God may assume this power.
Anousha: But wait a minute Sabrena what if the patient concerned was so severely disabled that they were constantly in pain or completely dependant on others or machines for their survival.
Sabrena: Hmm Anousha thats a tough situation, I have never thought about it that way before. Well I guess every situation depends on the individuals circumstance.
(OHT of contact details is displayed on projector)
Anousha: For your opinions on any of todays topics please feel free to contact us on or email us at news@email.com
Sabrena: Thats all for today, we hope youve enjoyed our broadcast.
Bibliography
Brugman, A. 2001, Finding Grace, NSW: Allen & Unwin
Clark, B. 1978, Whose Life is it Anyway, London: Samuel French Ltd.
Geisler, N. 1989, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, USA: Baker Book House Company
Gott. R and Linden. R. 1993, No easy way out, Victoria: CIS publishers How to Cite this Page MLA Citation: "Expository Oral." 123HelpMe.com. 29 Sep 2014 <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=148522>.
Ψυχήas Differentiated Unity in the Philosophy of Plato Author(s) : Robert W. Hall Source: Phronesis, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1963), pp. 63-82 Published by: Stable URL: Accessed: 15/08/2013 18:25