Sunday, January 23, 2005

‘Piss on Pity’: Clint Eastwood's ‘Million Dollar’ Snuff Film

By Mickey Z.

Read full article...

Posted 01/23 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. With all due respect, the article conflates two diametrically opposed rights. Certainly any progressive agrees that the access rights of the challenged members of society must be guaranteed. But it is contradictory to tout what should be a universal human right and rail against another what-should-be a universal human right.

    The denial of an individual’s right to determine whether or not to continue living is anti-democratic and arguably punitive—not just on the individual in question but perhaps family and friends. In the case of a patient with incurable disease and suffering excruciating pain, why is it that such a person must be condemned to a living purgatory?

    Mickey’s opinion is not explicitly stated but it seems implicit in the article. Maybe this could be made clearer.

    Posted by kim from  on  01/24  at  06:44 AM

  2. Kim,

    Read the review I’ve linked to in the article and you’ll see that someone in a similar situation as Hilary Swank’s character has the right to have the breathing tube disconnected. So the film also ignored the law.

    I’m all for anyone deciding whether they wish to live...but I’d never assume that just because a person is disabled they’d be more likely to choose suicide than able-bodied humans. The point of the article was to criticize Hollywood’s version of mercy killing.

    MZ

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  01/24  at  11:42 AM

  3. Since it’s been revealed that euthanasia is part of the film, it has always been a matter of significant interest to me.  There a several different kinds of euthanasia supporters; most of ‘em are conditional supporters of euhanasia.  That is, they will support someone’s desire to cease living, providing their reasons for doing so are in accord with their own personal values.  Or, “I support your decision to end your own life, because I can acccept your reason for wanting to do so.” Conversely, “I can’t support your decision to terminate your own life, because I don’t agree with your reason for wanting to do so.” My agreement or disagreement with their reasons, however, does not affect my belief in their right to cease living, for whatever reason they may have.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  01/24  at  03:29 PM

  4. Yes, the movie seems to have missed out on the correct legal and technical details of euthanasia. Typical Hollywood.

    Posted by kim from  on  01/24  at  03:46 PM

  5. Eastwood a Malthusian?

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  01/24  at  06:17 PM

  6. Both Eastwood and the woman quoted are morons, quite frankly. Eastwood has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time, mostly because he buys into the macho bullshit he has so successfully sold this country. A few weeks ago, I was a guest on a radio show and the host, unfortunately, made a joke about an Eastwood comment: he said that if Michael Moore pulled a Charleton Heston on him (viz., Moore’s interview with Heston about guns and the NRA), Eastwood would answer him with a gun, telling him he was trespassing. Nice. In America, rich people with guns get to run off other “liberal” rich people with movie cameras. It’s all nuts, if you ask me.

    Posted by Kurt from nimmo@zianet.com  on  01/24  at  07:23 PM
    7. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Double Blackmail and the Iraqi Resistance

    Previous entry: 21 Fleet Street

    [ads]

    Support Press Action