Consider the ways in which Brian Clark uses language, structure and form to convey meaning, ideas and feeling.
Whose Life is it Anyway? is a play about a sculptor, Ken Harrison, who has been paralysed in a road accident and his struggle for the right to die. Although humour is used to good effect in the play, there is a serious debate behind it.
The scene which we examined in depth occurs near the end of the play, just before the judge reaches his final verdict. Ken and the judge have a discussion as to whether Ken should be allowed to die. The author, Brian Clark, has written this scene to show how Ken's emotions come to a peak as the hearing reaches its conclusion.
At the beginning of the extract, there is a fast-moving exchange between the judge and Ken. showing their quick wits:
"Ken : I'd prefer it if you were a hanging judge
Judge : There aren't any any more"
Already, Ken displays his quick wit shown earlier in the play, by making a joke about a 'hanging judge'. However, this does have a serious meaning - he does want to die. The judge's response also tells us something about his character. Although he is willing to go along with Ken's joking, he is also trying to keep the hearing moving along. He, too, is very quick-witted, but has a different personality, and is a foil to Ken's arguments.
The first exchange immediately demonstrates the characters' first reactions to each another, giving us an indication of how the conversation will develop later.
The debate immediately, indeed, turns to more serious matters - the difference between unhappiness and depression:
"Ken : I'm almost totally paralysed. I'd be insane if I weren't depressed.
Judge : But there is a difference between being unhappy and being
depressed in the medical sense"
In this quotation, Ken shows his frustration at the condition he is in, by using the words 'totally paralysed'. In his next sentence, he is angry and also being a little ironic - he thinks that he is justifiably depressed, anyone in his situation would be. The judge's reply shows that he is continuing to be professional and fair to both sides. He makes the important point that there is a big difference between a mild, short-term unhappiness and a much more serious, longer depression. He is not simply accepting Ken's point, but instead making him expand on his comments, questioning him further. This shows his skill as a judge, in exploring both sides of an argument.
The key point of the extract, and indeed of the whole book, is then introduced by the author, through Ken's speech:
"Of course I want to live, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm dead already. I merely require the doctors to recognise the fact. I cannot accept that this condition constitutes life in any real sense at all"
Here, Ken tries to explain that he does not want to die, he just wants to escape from this state which he feels is not even worth the word 'life'. He would consider living as being able to be independent, to walk, to move his limbs, things usually taken for granted. He does not just want to be some kind of vegetable lying there on a bed. It may sound clichéd, but he wants to live a 'normal' life, and live it to the full.
At first sight, Ken's comment does not seem to make much sense, but in fact he has an important point. Should his state really be classified as life? This may be valid, although many people might disagree with the fact he is dead. Certainly he is medically alive, but spiritually, can he really be classified as such?
Humour is injected into the extract, which, as in the rest of the play, serves to break up some up the more serious dialogue:
"Judge : There also has to be absolutely no brain activity at all. Yours is
certainly working."
Although, as I mentioned above, the humour is vital in keeping the audience's interest, it also has a more important part to play. The judge's speech, although witty, has a serious point behind it - should someone with a healthy brain like Ken be allowed to die? Using humour is an effective way of communicating to the audience - when the joke has worn off, the serious message remains.
Ken then tries to point out what he is actually in pursuit of :
"My Lord, I am not asking anyone to kill me. I am only asking to be discharged from this hospital"
Ken's point is very important. He is not asking anyone to murder him. He does not want to be killed. He just wants to be released from the hospital he has been shut up in for the past months. He just wants to be free from his frustrating dependence on others. Ken's language is getting very emotional by this stage. Ken is beginning to despair that no-one will listen to him.
Ken now tries to argue that it is cruel to keep him in this state :
"with no real possibility of ever being able to direct anything. As far as I can see, that is an act of deliberate cruelty."
Ken feels, and possibly quite rightly so, that to keep his brain working when it cannot act on any of its decisions is 'deliberate cruelty'. What is the point of keeping him alive, when he cannot do anything? Staying alive is evidently cruel if it is causing him so much pain, when this could so easily be ended by discharging him and letting him die peacefully.
Ken repeatedly shows his anger at his right to choose being removed from him:
"The cruelty doesn't reside in saving someone or allowing them to die. It resides in the fact that the choice is removed from the man concerned."
Ken's language is very important in this quotation, in particular the word 'choice'. This is really the issue on which the whole extract, if not the whole book is based. To Ken, the argument centres not over the right to die, but his right to choose. Since he knows more about himself than anyone else, he cannot see how anyone can justify refusing to let him decide his future. Surely he is the person most justified to make that decision?
I feel that this quotation is one of the most important in the extract. Ken feels that what is the most important is his right to choose, and I would tend to agree with him. One can easily argue against a right to die, but it is harder to disagree that an individual should have a right to choose.
Ken again shows his frustration at his dependence on others:
"It is a question of dignity. Look at me here. I can do nothing, not even the basic primitive functions. I cannot even urinate."
Ken tries to take a objective view of his situation, explaining to the judge how little he really can do. He cannot even, in his words, manage the 'basic primitive functions' which before the accident he would have taken for granted. He is angry at his own incapability, and wants to express this to the judge, showing him the severity and totality of his injuries.
Ken's point about dignity is certainly interesting. It is not that anyone is trying to hurt him, but when they try to help that is how he feels.
Ken sums up his opinions into a single sentence:
"I find the hospital's persistent efforts to maintain this shadow of a life an indignity and it's inhumane."
Ken uses some quite complex language in this speech. He is trying to make his life seem less personal. Using the word 'maintain' makes it sound more like some kind of machine. But perhaps the most important word is 'persistent'. The use of this word once again shows Ken's resentment at being treated, given drugs and fed for day after day with no chance of his recovery.
The audience really begins to feel for Ken here (although perhaps this is unsurprising, since the whole play tends to make the audience empathise with Ken). It is evident that Ken is speaking from the heart.
Ken now delivers a very strong, though debatable argument:
"If I choose to live, it would be appalling if society killed me. If I choose to die, it is equally appalling if society keeps me alive."
Here, Ken has used a indisputable statement - 'If I choose to live, it would be appalling if society killed me' - to try and prove to the judge a much more 'controversial' statement - 'If I choose to die, it is equally appalling if society keeps me alive'. This is a very clever way of doing this. Ken uses what is basically the same sentence to convey two very different points, the words 'appalling' and 'equally appalling' drawing a parallel between the two. The sentences have an almost poetic ring to them, making them one of the the most memorable quotations from the play.
The judge is not convinced however, despite Ken's fine words:
"Judge : Surely it enhances that society.
Ken : I do not wish to be a medical achievement"
The judge is again being very professional in his manner, not being swung unduly by Ken's persuading ways. He tries to examine fairly both sides of the argument, pointing out alternative views.
Ken's final speech is very emotional. He sums up his views is a couple of lines - that he does not want to be kept alive by machines, if he can't manage by himself, he doesn't want to live at all. In his own words, if he 'cannot be a man', he does not want to be 'a medical achievement'.
The Judge, after some thought, finally begins his concluding speech:
"This is a most unusual case. Before I begin, I would like to state that I believe all the parties have acted in good faith."
As the judge remarks, this is an extraordinary case. Habeas Corpus would not usually be used to try to 'free' a hospital patient. More importantly, in such cases, the legal position is often unclear, with few previous cases to go upon.
The judge's second statement is also vitally important. He states that he believes everybody has acted 'in good faith', that is to say, everybody has acted in a way they thought was correct. Nobody should get any 'blame'.
This is an extremely significant point, which I thoroughly agree with. All parties - hospital staff, consultants, lawyers and of course Ken - were acting with good reason.
Overall, this scene is undoubtedly one of the most important in the whole play and is effective for several reasons. It shows the characters of Ken and the judge up well, particularly in their long verbal rallies. The language used also shows us the emotions of Ken during the interchanges.
What is probably most significant about the extract is its ending, or rather, its apparent lack of one - it ends before the judge actually announces his verdict. This is significant, and in my opinion, a good idea. If the verdict were included, I would have spent much of my time talking about the verdict, which to a point is immaterial. What matters in this play is making the audience think about the issues.
I enjoyed reading the play and found it amusing but also very thought-provoking. The characters were all very different and well described. For its length and apparent simplicity, this is a very thought provoking play. Brian Clark has managed to write in a light-hearted way about a very serious issue.