John Q Questions

John’s problem begins with the refusal of the insurance company to fund his son’s transplant? What are your thoughts on this as an ethical issue?

It’s understandable that there are many people out there who need help and saying yes to one means the insurance company would have to say yes to all, yet I feel as though when there is a child’s life on the line it’s an unfair position to be in for both the insurance company and the family. It becomes obvious that America does need private health care and I do think the insurance company should have helped out and loaned the money to John Q.

John’s response is to take people hostage. Would John’s response be consistent with Hooker’s three legged stool model or Fletchers’ situation ethics framework? Explain.

I think that John would still have done what he did even using the three legged stool method as nothing seems worse than watching your child die when you haven’t tried absolutely everything to stop them from dying. Although John was not thinking straight under that type of pressure and hadn’t had that experience, he did everything he could to make sure the hostages were safe such as not loading the gun. He knew full of the consequences but he still went ahead anyway.

What does the paramedic think of doctors? Why?

The paramedic thinks that the doctors are all in it for money as they go by the book so that money is put before people’s lives. The paramedic can see the distress that John is in and understands that John wants his child to live and why the doctors can’t first save the boy and then get paid after. The paramedic sees it almost as though the doctors couldn’t care about the lives they save like there’s no real passion for it.

Why does nobody have any sympathy for the man who sprays pepper spray in John's face?

They all start to like John after they realize he’s a good man in a terrible situation not of his choice. The other man though was beating his wife and treating her badly which everyone could see and this was his choice. Although what John was doing was bad on a bigger scale the reasoning behind it was better than the man beating his wife explaining why they had no sympathy for him as he deserved what he got.

Why does the woman with the baby describe John as "a very good man"?

She describes him as a good man as he does everything possible to make them comfortable and wants to also help their situations. He talks to them and never really threatens them unless he is backed into a corner. He also let her and her husband go after she had the baby. 

John's wife says, "I support him in everything he does." Should she?  Could she justify her response on the basis of Hooker’s model or Situation Ethics?  Explain.

I think she should support her husband in everything he does especially as she was the one to tell him to do something quickly about the situation. I don’t think she could justify this with the legged stool model though. Although by scripture it would be right to save the child and it’s not like John was actually going to kill anyone but I think she would struggle to justify the reasoning behind it with tradition, more so because other people might have been in similar situations but not taken such desperate measures.

How ethical is the media’s response?

They weren’t really interested as to why John was doing what he did but rather used it to make themselves better and were only interested in the sensationalism of what was happening as it was so dramatic and such big news. They took advantage of the situation and this was seen when the news reporter was being really vain about being on TV and not interested about what was happening inside the hospital.

Why is the crowd on John's side?

The crowd understands John’s situation and also I think to a certain degree they hate that they can’t have private health care in America and how it could just as easily have been them in that situation.

John offers his own heart. Is he crazy? Or should he just "let go" and "accept" it?

I don’t think he’s crazy as (even though I don’t have any experience) a parent would do anything to save their child and this was the last desperate measure that John was willing to take. Knowing your child died and you could’ve done something would not be easy to live with and accepting would be easier said than done.

Would it cross a line for the doctor to take John's heart and transplant it?

The doctor would possibly lose his job but even though he tried to convince John not to it comes down to John’s decision. If John did kill himself then it would essentially be wasted if the doctor didn’t transplant the heart. John would know that even if the doctor says he won’t do it, that he would go through with it if John killed himself. I don’t think it’s crossing a line for the doctor as he can only do as much as he can.