Jennifer Mae C.

Heredia
2A MT

PHL 5
Mr. Ramiscal
JOHN Q MOVIE ASSESSMENT

1. Give your honest moral assessment regarding John Qs action.

My honest moral assessment regarding John Qs action would be to see it as his ultimate reaction
towards societys neglect of his plea for help to save his son. This reaction is coupled by his
rational and irrational methods, first exhausting all rational and sensible ways to come up to
terms in order to get his son on the recipients list. After trying everything in order to adapt to all
external factors hindering his objective, he then took matters into his own hands that is by
turning towards violence to get to terms with his negotiators.
I think John Qs actions reflect what a father would ultimately do for his son. It shows his deep
passion towards his love for his son, and with that as his drive, I can say that he only hostaged
and attempted to kill innocent people out of extreme frustration and desperation. But on another
note, tolerating this kind of action is giving way to the animal aspect within us, glorifying
violence for the ultimate need for survival. And so for me in the end, John Q would still have to
face certain consequences, considering the way he executed his good intentions with bad action.
2. Give your educated Christian moral principle regarding John Qs action.
Looking at it through the Christian viewpoint, certain moral principles can be applied. One
implication would be to say that John Q committed an imperfect voluntary action due to
impairment on his will, being under the influence of fear and so acting with full attention but
with imperfect consent. This impairment on his will roots from the fear of knowing that his son
is on the verge of death, helpless and defenseless while waiting for a possible miracle. Seeing
himself accountable towards his sons life, he was forced to take matters into his own hands. And
then this sense of responsibility further contributed to the built up of his consequent passion,
being deliberately aroused by his will to ensure the survival of his son regardless of the
consequences that will be imposed on him afterwards.
With this stated, John Q becomes accountable for what he did, being found guilty of kidnapping
as he faced the law just after his sons operation. But the degree towards his accountability lessen
with the impairment on his will being considered, as depicted in the movie where he was judged
not guilty of attempted murder and armed criminal action.

Jennifer Mae C. Heredia

2A MT

PHL 5
Mr. Ramiscal

3. Pick one character and identify his/her ethical moral principle.

Rebecca Payne is the director of Hope Memorial Hospital where Mike Archibald received
treatment. She discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Archibald their options regarding Mikes situation,
whether theyd rely on a very much expensive yet unsure heart transplant or if theyd just accept
the fact that Mike would ultimately die, least provide him the medication that hell need so to
feel as comfortable as possible. She also informed John and Denise that their insurance carrier
did not contain provisions for transplant surgery, and that theyll have to secure a down payment
of $75,000 before Mike could be on the recipients list. Following this, John consulted with his
insurance and he filed an appeal, which they approved. When John showed this to Rebecca, she
told him that he filed the wrong paperwork and that he needed to file a grievance instead of an
appeal. Later on, Rebecca decided to put Mikes name on the list, despite the fact that she did not
receive the full down payment of $75,000.
During the first part of the film, one can see the black and white perspective emphasized by
Rebeccas lack of empathy for Mike and his parents wherein she saw the situation as only having
a one-sided means to an ends, reinstating the need for money and power to compensate for the
services in line with ones duties and responsibilities. She was seen to have this materialistic
view, refusing to help due to technicalities imposed by the Archibalds limited health plan. She
also reiterated the fact that there are over 50 million people in the country without medical
insurance, imposing that one cannot do anything about it since its in the Constitution and
thereby regarded rules and regulations as the ultimate standard for ones roles, responsibilities,
and limitations. With this, she is said to practice deontological ethics for her duty-based service,
restricted by her role in the society, and prioritizes the wealthiest and most powerful who are
more capable to pay for their services and execute their duties.