Directions: Answers the stated questions (5).

Supported your answers with the ethical theories/principles

discussed. Other references must be cited properly using APA 7th Ed.

1. What is the ethical dilemma that John Q faces in this movie?

Denzel Washington stars in John Q, an emotionally charged film about the devastating effects of the private
healthcare system. The film focuses on the concerns of lower and middle-class American families about the
healthcare system, as well as the less sympathetic individuals in hospital administrations and insurance
companies. After learning that his son has an enlarged heart, Denzel plays a father who cannot afford a heart
transplant for his son. The attending physician and the hospital administrator offer little sympathy or assistance
to the couple. He snaps under the stress and holds a group of people hostage in the hospital's emergency room.
The major ethical issue that John Q faced was whether or not the hospital should pay for the operation since his
insurance company can not be used due to its terms and condition and let the boy live or follow the rules
meaning the boy would not survive.

2. Do you think everyone has the right to proper health care? Do you believe that it is the responsibility
of the government to provide every citizen with accessible health care? Why or why not?

The Patients Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta of Patient's Rights and Obligations Act of 2017 clearly state
that quality healthcare is a matter of rights for people from the moment they are born, but it is also given that
this right cannot be asserted absolutely. Health care may be the most intersecting and critical of all the rights to
which we are entitled. Because of the frailty of our human lives, we must protect this right as a public good.
Universal health care is critical to enabling the most marginalized segments of any population to live dignified
lives. The right to health is an essential component of our human rights and our understanding of what it means
to live a dignified life. To give it its full name, the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health is not new.

A fundamental question that must be addressed is who is responsible for John Q's son Michael's health? At the
very least, the film introduces the most likely players: parents, employers, the government, and the healthcare
system. A second factor to this question quickly unfolds. When treatment for a health threat is as expensive as a
heart transplant, taking responsibility for the child's health is immediately coupled with the practical reality of
financial capability. A low-income family could not afford the cost of a catastrophic adverse health event like
heart transplant surgery. Individual payment for services (private pay) becomes unattainable for all but the
wealthiest members of society. In the absence of a national health care program, the options for payment for
services are limited to employer-provided health insurance and government programs for the poor. Although
the responsibility for arranging treatment may theoretically be assigned to the person in need's family, the
practical reality is that high-cost treatment is out of reach for the majority of families. With beneficence in
mind, the government is indeed responsible for the healthcare of everybody under its governance, Why?
Because it is the duty of the government to protect its people, assure an adequate local public health
infrastructure is always available, promote a healthy community and healthy behaviors for everyone, prevent
the spread of communicable diseases, protect its people against environmental health hazards, prepare for and
respond to emergencies, and lastly assure health services is there for the people.

3. Do you think the rights of the hostages are violated? Should their rights be neglected to save the boy?

The film "John Q" addresses the issue of "necessary evil." Necessary evil is defined as something unpleasant or
undesirable that is required to achieve a goal. This film considers John's actions to be necessary in order for him
to achieve his ultimate goal. Although John's assault on the hospital and threat to kill hostages would be
considered evil, he did so in order to save his son's life. Before considering such an extreme measure, John
exhausted all other possibilities. As a result, his decision to attack the hospital was a last resort that was
required to achieve his goal. Furthermore, if we will examine what happened in the movie and how John Q
hostage the people their rights are not that violated in a sense that none of them was purposely harmed by John.
Their freedom rights may have been violated, but none of them were harmed. John Q actually cared for the
people inside the emergency room, practicing what we called DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE by being fair and
giving each person what they deserve or what is due in the given situation he allowed people who needed
medical interventions to be given assistance and be treated accordingly.

Personally, if I were in John Q's situation, with all of the pressure, stress, and frustration caused by the system's
unfairness and injustices, I think I would have done something similar because John Q did everything he could,
like working like a dog day and night to provide healthcare insurance for his family, but then everything was
gone in a flash without even the insurance company informing him that he had been downgraded from having
full-time health insurance to part-time health insurance. By failing to inform John that his insurance had been
demoted from the insurance company, the insurance company breached its responsibility in the areas of
veracity, justice, and informed consent. He also sought assistance from various organizations but was turned
down. In order to save his son, he sold everything he and his wife owned. In short, he did everything legal and
right but was still not enough and in vain.

Considering ethical theories such as DEONTOLOGY, which means fulfilling one's duty or obligation,
TELEOLOGICAL, which means good results, and UTILITARIAN, which means an action is judged as good or
bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and to act in order to produce
the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I believe it was necessary for John Q to do what he did,
even if it was an unconventional way of doing things. It was a desperate attempt to save his son. When John
takes people, hostage, in the emergency room, he doesn't consider the consequences; instead, he acts on his
duty as a father desperate to save his son. Teleological in the sense that, while his actions were not the usual
approach of asking for help, the results were still positive because, in the end, he saved his son's life; and
finally, utilitarian in the manner that, while his actions were bad, everyone benefited from them. Because
everyone now understands that healthcare services and delivery are truly corrupt and unfair, always favoring
those with more money and power and leaving insufficient funds to cover struggling families like John's family.

4. What is the ethical dilemma that the cardiac surgeon faces at the end of the movie?

The unbelievable decision of John Q to kill himself in order to donate his heart to his son had an ethical impact
on the life of the cardiac surgeon. When it comes to ethical issues in his profession, he may face serious
consequences. He may indeed be expelled from his profession, and his reputation as a surgeon could be harmed
and tarnished for the rest of his life. In addition, he may face legal issues in the future.

5. Is John Q. Archibald (Denzel Washington) a good person –an ethical person? What is it that sets him
apart from others? Explain.

John Archibald, the father and protagonist, struggles with the most perplexing moral dilemmas, weighing his
overwhelming duty as a parent against the "greater good" for society. This film continues to make us question
what is right and wrong. One example is how John Archibald makes us wonder what we would do in the same
situation and what is truly important to us. We discover how difficult it is to assess the morality of others'
actions. As a father, John has a moral obligation to do everything in his power to ensure his son's well-being.
He owes it to Mike to provide a better life than he has for himself. John, a Christian, recognizes this and works
hard to secure enough hours at his factory to adequately provide for his family. He drives Mike to school,
attends his little league baseball games, and does his best to emotionally and financially support him. When
Mike's medical condition is discovered, those needs are greatly increased; however, John's
DEONTOLOGICAL moral duty remains the same: to love, support, and care for his son. In this regard, John
responds to his ethical obligations in an ethical manner. He has no regard for the consequences and acts solely
on the basis of filial obligation. Above all, he values his role as a parent and the sanctity of human life. His
altruistic decision to donate his heart to his son shows that he values this more than a "right" to one's organs.
Under these circumstances, this is the only rational (and thus justifiable) action. Actions and laws must be
universally applicable, as dictated by DEONTOLOGY. All followers must be willing to give as well as receive.
John expected nothing less from others than what he was willing to give. John's actions had far-reaching
consequences for more than just Mike. UTILITARIANISM requires people to make decisions that will provide
the most good or pleasure to the greatest number of people. John Archibald and his family will never be able to
pay enough taxes or insurance premiums on their limited income to come close to covering the costs of Mike's
procedure. It would be unjust to subject them to treatment for which they had not paid. From a UTILITARIAN
point of view, Mike's parents' demand that he be the beneficiary of such an expensive procedure is unjust and
immoral when that money could produce more collective happiness distributed among the other patients who
pass through the hospital. However, this is only one perspective of UTILITARIANISM that was depicted in the
film. If we look at another act that John did, such as the hostage taking, the end result of such action is far
greater than anything else because they are able to voice out the injustice in healthcare delivery/service and its
insurances.

Finally, John acts ethically. Corrupt practices in the health-care insurance industry eventually resulted in
violations of many people's natural rights. These subtle shifts shifted the obligation of these corporations from
BENEFICENCE to MALEFICENCE. This flagrant disregard for Kant's ethics and duty naturally compels other
rational and moral individuals to go to greater lengths to maintain their personal beliefs and live in accordance
with their ethical stances. In today's society, our healthcare insurance crisis is outrageous, and "John Q" had the
potential to make no one aware of how serious this issue truly is. As humans, we will all face moral dilemmas
at some point in our lives. Committing an "evil" act for the sake of someone else's well-being could be one of
these dilemmas we face. The concept of a necessary or acceptable evil is highly debatable. When does evil
become justifiable? According to some ethical schools, the ultimate goal is sometimes independent of the
means to achieve it. In such ethical theories, the evil act may be justified if it leads to the ultimate good for the
benefit of others. John Q's actions are the "necessary evil" required not only to save his son's life, but also to
expose the inequity of this country's health-care system. Although John's actions may be considered evil, some
would consider it even more evil for him to have done nothing and allowed his son to die. As a result, in
retrospect, he chose the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day, we must sometimes do unfavorable things in
order to achieve a favorable outcome.

CONSEQUENTIALISM is an ethical theory that bases right and wrong on the consequences. This theory is
founded on three premises: ends are independent of means, "cost benefit analysis," and right and wrong are
determined by consequences. A "necessary evil" may or may not be justified under this branch of ethical
theories. Because the term "necessary" implies that the intent is to achieve a commendable goal, the actual evil
act may be considered separately from the goal itself. Furthermore, in order to consider this dilemma from a
consequential standpoint, a cost-benefit analysis would be required. Furthermore, in order to consider this
dilemma from a consequential standpoint, a cost-benefit analysis would be required. A cost-benefit analysis is
performed to assess the issue and determine how well or poorly a planned action will perform. A person must
identify, quantify, and add all positive and negative factors before making a decision based on the difference
between the two. The positive factor in John's case would be saving his son's life. The disadvantages would be
prison time or being killed in the process. Most parents I know would agree that any of the above would be
worth it in order to save their child's life. Most parents I know would agree that any of the above would be
worth it in order to save their child's life. In the film, John was willing to give up his life and freedom in
exchange for the life of his son. As a result, the positive outweighs the negative in his case.
Natural Rights is another theory of thought within consequentialism that would support John's decision in the
film. Natural rights is the belief that all human beings are endowed with certain rights by their Creator (God or
nature). This is based on John Locke's ideology, which stated that we are all born with the inalienable rights to
life, liberty, and property. In John Q's case, the hospital had the ability to save his son's life but chose to deny
him that right due to financial constraints. Furthermore, because this theory is a teleological ethical approach, it
determines right and wrong based on a goal. John Q's goal was honorable and admirable, so his "evil act" was
justified. John Q. Archibald is undeniably a good father and husband, he is a man of his words by always
keeping his words and acting upon it and a man with principle.

References

Americanbar.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2022, from

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the
-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/

BBC. (n.d.). Ethics - introduction to ethics: Consequentialism. BBC. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Deontological ethics. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved February 27, 2022,
from https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics

Government's responsibility for Public Health - CHS Administration Handbook - Minnesota Dept. of health.
Government's Responsibility for Public Health - CHS Administration Handbook - Minnesota Dept. of Health.
(n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2022, from
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/practice/resources/chsadmin/mnsystem-responsibility.html

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2016, December 8). Virtue ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Necessary evil. NECESSARY EVIL | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved February
27, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/necessary-evil