Movie review: Million Dollar Baby

My sister recommended Million Dollar Baby to me a few months ago, and last night my husband and I finally got around to watching it. It's not a feel good movie, folks. In fact, my husband said it was the saddest, most depressing movie he has ever seen. (Thelma and Louise used to hold this spot for him.)

Clint Eastwood plays an aging boxing coach, and Hilary Swank a 30-something female boxer from a poor, welfare-dependent family. Technically, the film has some artful use of light, and Morgan Freeman is a great choice both as supporting actor and narrator. I will admit that I am puzzled by the title and don't feel it's a good fit for the film.

The story combines family issues, regrets, hard work, achieving one's dreams, spiritual questions, and, in the end, the issue the film grapples with is euthanasia. Unfortunately, I didn't feel that it handled the issue in a realistic way. (spoiler coming up, so consider yourself forewarned) The movie One True Thing (which is based on the book by Anna Quindlen of the same title) did a better job in addressing it.

In the story, the Hilary Swank character is injured terribly in a boxing match and becomes paralyzed from the neck down, and is dependent on a ventilator to breathe. She ends up asking Eastwood to help her die, because she doesn't want to continue to live with her situation. Suicide isn't an option for her since she can't move, although when he turns her down she does attempt suicide the only way she possibly could: by biting her tongue til it severs. Her life is saved after the tremendous blood loss of this suicide attempt, but once Eastwood sees how badly she wants to die, he reconsiders his original refusal to help her. Eventually he decides that helping her to die is the kindest thing he can do for her, and so he does.

The thing that doesn't add up about the euthanasia issue in this movie is that the Swank character never requests to be taken off of life support. Wouldn't this have been the simple answer? My husband thought that maybe people aren't allowed to make a decision like that, but I am thinking that there is no way a patient cannot refuse any treatment. Anybody know the answer to this?

I think euthanasia is an interesting moral issue, possibly because I am not sure I think there is a completely easy answer to it. I know that the only acceptable Christian answer to euthanasia is that it is never ok, that it is sin. However, this seems too simple an answer to me when we look at real life situations. At this site there is a lot of information on the subject, and one of the interesting things I noticed was that although they are against mercy killing, they seem to be ok with suicide. So, if it is ok, although tragic, for someone to decide to kill themself, what option do they have if they are physically unable to carry out the act?

I do understand the slippery slope issue involved, and so perhaps that is enough to make a lot of people say No Way to euthanasia for any reason.

One thing I wondered about as an offshoot of this topic was medical technology and life expectancy. Today people can live longer than ever, many times thanks to science and medical technology. My premature son might not have lived if medical technology had not been available. Heck, *I* very well might not have lived without medical technology both for his birth and for the birth of our 6th child as well. Boy am I thankful it was available! But in the case of a person like the Hilary Swank character in Million Dollar Baby, medical technology was being used to keep a person alive who did not want to be. If we are against euthanasia, and perhaps also against suicide, is it also immoral to not avail oneself of medical technology that will save a life? I am curious about the differentiation that some people see here. Please know, I'm not saying I disagree. I am merely thinking about the issue and am undecided about it.

So, how about "do not resuscitate" orders in nursing homes? Apparently the patient or their family has made the decision that if they become in need of medical technology to save their life, that they do not want it. Apparently they do not feel their life is worth keeping on with if they don't have to. Maybe they are looking for a way out....? Is this an immoral thing?

What about living wills? Is it immoral for someone to draw up a legal document that says that under this circumstance or that, they do not want to be kept alive? What about when people do not want to be kept on feeding tubes? Is it really more "moral" to let them die a slow death of dehydration and starvation, rather than a quick and painless death thanks to pharmaceuticals that can only be obtained through a physician?

I guess public schools and taxation weren't big enough issues for me this week.....