About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 3:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for posting this Bob. The movie certainly was a magnificent piece of work and genuinely moved me in a way few movies have done - both I and my (non-O'ist) companion at the cinema were close to tears at the end.

Post 1

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It was indeed a moving and brilliantly mounted production. As a work of art, it makes a powerful statement about the definition of "human life" -- and about the "right to life." A must-see movie.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As a work of art, it makes a powerful statement about the definition of "human life" -- and about the "right to life." A must-see movie
SPOLIER ALERT

People can still live happy, productive and enjoyable lives and be quadriplegics.  What kind of objectivist would be so willing to convince someone to just give up and die?  For a group that espouses the virtues of overcoming tremendous odds to accomplish monumental feats, that professes to hold their own life as their highest value, it seems many would be the first to give up and die if they fell off a horse or was paralyzed in some similiar accident.  You can still read, write, talk, love, and think. 
 
from http://www.fumento.com/biotech/milliondollar.html

If you're still planning to see the Oscar-winning film "Million Dollar Baby" and don't know the ending – turn to the funny pages now! I'm giving it away. Maggie, played by Hilary Swank takes a massive blow in the boxing ring and is left a quadriplegic on a respirator. After she repeatedly pleas to her crusty (but loving) aging manager Clint Eastwood to be allowed to die he finally complies both by "pulling the plug" and giving her a lethal dose of adrenaline.

Disability advocates claim the movie was a pro-euthanasia message. Certainly by law Swank could have simply asked her doctor to take her off life support. Instead, Eastwood's character breaks the law in bypassing the doctor and changing the action from passive to active. That does sound like a message.

John Kelly of Boston calls the film "a lie." He's not a film critic, but he knows something about the subject. "When I was 21 I was sledding on a piece of cardboard down a hill and a tree jumped up in front," he told me. He's now paralyzed from the neck down. "I'm everybody's worst nightmare," he says chuckling.

Now 41, Kelly is one of the approximately 11,000 new spinal cord injuries in the U.S. each year. Of these, about a fifth lead to quadriplegia. But technology continually makes it easier for such persons to lead enjoyable and productive lives.

Mobility is vital and at a single website you can find 55 different models of power wheelchairs, the descriptions of which resemble sports car reviews. They discuss horsepower, speed, turning radius, how high an object they can surmount. One has "Six wheels on the ground [to] provide superior stability and a smoother ride," while another has tank-like treads for off-road driving. The iBOT wheelchair climbs and descends stairs.

Communication is also vital, aided now by tremendously-improved voice-activated software. It allows writing books, surfing the web, using the phone, and – O, joy! – even paying bills. Voice-activated e-mail allows quadriplegics the same opportunity to read and write letters and receive spam as the rest of us.

All of these technologies were invented or vastly improved since Christopher Reeve's accident. Moving higher up the tech ladder, new "functional electrical stimulation" (FES) devices implanted in the body can restore some hand movement and allow those with spinal cord injury (SCI) to feed themselves. Maggie could have used an FES that assists with breathing, freeing many quadriplegics from the ventilator.

We've also greatly improved our knowledge of physical rehabilitation for recently-injured persons. "If I could have talked to Maggie," says Kelly, "I'd say 'We're going to take you to a real rehab center with other people with spinal cord injuries and a gung-ho staff to help with physical therapy as well as being able to treat your depression.'"

milliondollar.html
Technology for spinal cord injury victims improves each year. This iBot climbs stairs.
 
Those who work with the disabled talk guardedly about "a cure." Research showing partial regeneration of injured rodent spines from adult stem cells goes back a decade, and is now undergoing human testing. Others have used mature Schwann cells from the brain to regenerate animal spinal tissue.

Yet for those with older injuries, even complete spinal regeneration would require tremendous rehabilitation to get atrophied body parts moving again says Marcie Roth, executive director of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Roth thinks many SCI patients wouldn't find it worthwhile. "These people have grown accustomed to their lives and many wouldn't want to change them," she says.
 
After his accident, Kelly got a master's degree in sociology at Brandeis University. "I can do lights, appliances, air conditioning, make phone calls, and control the television." He says, "Sometimes I watch TV and work on the computer at one time like any multitasking American and it's fun! I go shopping like anybody else. I really enjoy cooking. I enjoy music and can control my stereo (a jukebox-type variety that holds hundreds of CDs) with my wheelchair."

Adds Kelly, "It's annoying to have to say my life is good in order for people to stop thinking I'd be better off dead. But I love my life and everything in it," he says.

Maggie might have ended up feeling the same way – if only the script hadn't killed her off.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 10:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M. F. Dickey:

Whose life is it, anyway?

Post 4

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just watched this last night. Extremely moving and poignant. The gym scenes were very real, from the arrogant bullies, the hangers on, the nut cases, to the emotionally damaged but introspective characters, and the "contenders". Frankie and Maggie were very likeable and very real. I was so moved at the end I couldn't get to sleep. Clint Eastwood is a master director.

Post 5

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I finally saw this movie about a month ago, perfectly prepared to hate it. See, I thought it was about women's boxing, which I think it completely nasty. Boy, was I wrong!  I was actually cheering for Maggie after her 5th knock out.  It was wonderfully (sometimes amusingly) technical in it's approach to the sport, something I found interesting and more than passing the muster for respect. I still wouldn't go see a female match even if you paid me, (well, maybe if you paid me to go,) but this movie had me blabbing about the sport to my boss all the next day.

You can't help but fall in love with Maggie. What guts, what balls! Right to the tender, tender end.  Everyone gets what they want in the end. To me, it was the happiest of endings.

Teresa


Post 6

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
   Much of what Michael Dickey says is right on...for many...but NOT for all.
 
   Because one/some can do 'X' doesn't mean that all should be expected to try to, as if each one's life context is irrelevent to...'the'...decision, anymore than because (in this case) one sees no worth in trying that therefore all should see no worth; individual-life context needs be understood, and, more importantly, accepted re such decisions made by both Maggie AND Frankie. As an aside, anyone see Last of the Mohicans (Lewis/Stowe's version)? An interesting (and controversial?) euthanasian scene lies therein also.

  Because the likes of Stephen Hawking finds himself able to handle ALS (not sure which'd be worse to try to 'adjust' to: immediate quadriplegia, or the creeping type) doesn't mean that Tiger Woods or an Olympic gymnast contender should be 'expected' to fight the same fight. Those whose life always was living 'in-their-mind' (a la Hawking) are geared a bit better to handle such more than those whose life was in their body-movements (martial artists, ballerinas, etc.) According to Linda Lee, her husband was close to this area of never moving again...and made his choice to try to overcome his situation. If he didn't succeed I guess he could've written books (indeed, he has actually); he was 'mind' oriented also in studying and explaining his art, though not as much as Hawking.

   Still, the choice of whomever to take whichever route (keep fighting; let-it-go) is not properly to be second-guessed by anyone. There is no...rational...moral criteria to judge such by.

   I'm with Adam Reed on this --- Anyone pick up that Adam's 'question' is the name of another movie with Richard Dreyfuss? The movie deals precisely with this subject of deciding...and who should AND shouldn't. It's about a sculptor.

   While I'm on this, let me add an HBO movie called Right of Way with Bette Davis and James Stewart, though it has nothing to do with disabilities per se, it is about one's right to choose one's time to end-it-all.

J-D
   


Post 7

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 10:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Woooo.....just finished watchin' it and I'm damn happy I have a bottle wine in the house. I'm hurtin' over here.


Post 8

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with J-D, and I liked the whole movie, all the way to the very last. As someone who's lost a very close friend to suicide, I really do think that "no man can be the judge of another man's limit." And even if someone could objectively judge another in this regard - what then? What if a person simply doesn't want to live? Is it the responsibility of someone else - or a whole society - to keep this person alive against their will? Granted, I'm all in favor of therapy, medication, and doing all you can and riding out the rough spots, which as someone pointed out was not tried in Maggie's case, and I think that's a very good point. (And I also agree with the issues over the legality of Frankie's actions. But I'm speaking to the broader point here). But for how long? I think there is no clear line. But at some point the scales are noticably tipped. And, assuming such was the case with Maggie, I am satisfied with the ending. Fight on to the last. It is a truly selfish thing to do. And for those who have lost the essential aspect of themselves... well, it might not be a purist's path, but in some cases, as in Maggie's I think, it can be a positive step. And I think that that's the message, in the end. Not for everyone, but for some.

Post 9

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I very much enjoyed this movie. I would recommend to anyone who wants to see something related to answering the question "What is the meaning of life?"

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, December 21, 2007 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Totally disagree with you guys- totally disgusting movie with an underlying message of futility and dispair. A definite turkey.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.