Reviewing The Behavioral and Moral Lessons from John Q, a Film by Nick Cassavetes

In the film John Q, the Archibald family faces a tragedy when their son is found to be diagnosed with critical heart issues. However, the institutions within the movie provide an ethical dilemma, while reflecting the reality within our current society. Although help is supposed to be offered to those in need, especially a young boy who is on the edge of losing his life, institutions have alienated themselves from doing the right thing like providing that help. Instead, institutions are focusing on profits first, and ignoring the moral obligations of a person. As the movie points out, the oath doctors and other physicians take when committing to their career is meaningless due to the systematic way in how institutions are run. Whilst some may have found the main character, John Archibald’s, actions immoral due to the way he handled things, such as holding up an emergency room with a gun, and keeping hostages, those may also consider the facts that Archibald hadn’t only done this as a cry out for his son’s heart. In addition to wanting to get help and healthcare for his son, John Q was rebelling against the corrupt system and numerous companies who refused to help his dying son due to his financial situation. This paper will be exploring the ethical and legal issues depicted in the movie John Q by analyzing John Q’s decision-making process, identifying the numerous factors that influenced his decision making, and which of these influences appears to have had the strongest impact. Moreover, a brief update on the events depicted in the film will be provided, which will mainly consist of the consequences and principle characters John Q and the hospital ultimately suffered as a turn-out of the events within the movie, as well as the benefits they gained.

The primary problem within the movie arises from the fact that the board of hospital directors refuse to assist John Q’s son with a heart transplant. The board of directors refused to put the son’s name on the list requesting for donors, let alone complete a heart transplant, and this was because of John Q’s financial situation. One could easily imagine things from the hospital’s perspective, where the company must consider the salaries the doctors are being paid, the various medications that need to be utilized, the numerous costs of the expensive machines within hospitals, as well as many other costs. However, it’s not due to the strict hospital policies that the immoral tone of the movie was set. On the contrary, it was due to the way the directors, and the staff of the hospital were handling the problem. Rebecca Payne, who was responsible of delivering the unfortunate news of their son to John Q and his wife, did this insensitively. Rebecca bluntly stated that their son is experiencing an irreversible heart problem where he needs a heart transplant as soon as possible, and where his blood pressure mustn’t go below 60, or he has the possibility of not making it. Right after delivering these news, Rebecca told the family, without allowing them to grief for these unexpected news, that John Q’s insurance does not cover the heart transplant, and he must provide a $75,000 deposit in order to have his son’s name listed to see if there are any matching donors.

The hospital’s directors’ actions prove to the viewers that they are yet another institution of bourgeois that Karl Marx describes that feeds off the funds and services and profits from those in help, the provide not even basic health care in return. Although, as the movie points out, this particular hospital conducted over 500 heart transplants a year that cost approximately $250,000 each, they nonetheless refused to overlook some profits in order to save someone’s, in fact, a young, naïve boy’s, life. John Q, realizing that he had no other option but pay the $75,000, did everything he possibly can to save up money for his son. From accepting charity money from his friends and family, to signing up to every loan he can get his hands on, John Q was left desperate when the hospital kept on taking his money while threatening him that his son will be discharged from the hospital if the complete funds aren’t paid soon. At this point, the hospital had taken over $15,000 from John Q, and even the viewer can feel the sincerity of his words when he states he will pay them. But blinded by money, and hungry for more, the hospital refuses to help John Q’s son. The viewer even discovers that the son’s illness could’ve been prevented if a previous doctor had said anything about it. In other words, John Q coldly finds out that other prior doctors noticed his son’s illness, but didn’t mention it in order to allow it to get larger, and come to this unfortunate situation, with hopes of gaining higher profits.

Ultimately, John Q desperately forced the hospital to put his son’s name on that list by holding an entire emergency room hostage. Although the general concept of what John Q is doing is wrong, he was by far the most understanding and fair “criminal” these hostages had ever seen. From ensuring that every patient in there gets the correct care for their injuries and sicknesses and needs, to actually providing a meal for everyone, John Q left his hostages in shock at his good nature. The viewer also understood at this point that John Q didn’t mean to hurt anyone, that he truly meant to just get his son better. At the end, from the change of heart of Rebecca Payne, John Q’s son is finally provided the heart transplant, and John Q is left to face numerous charges.

As can be seen, this controversial and thought-provoking film, John Q., leaves its viewers with the horrifying realization of the numerous unethical organizations society is now congested with. Institutions are alienating values within a society by visualizing everyone as green or red profits or damages, respectively. People, like John Q., who are originally good natured and big-hearted, are left to desperateness and crime when not provided with the most basic human rights. Not only does the movie John Q raise awareness of this tangible issue within society, but it also encourages viewers to stand up for themselves, not in the means John Q. did, but in the means that everyone does deserve basic human rights.

Works Cited

1. Barry, S. (2010). “Do No Harm”: In Defense of John Q. Journal of Medical Humanities, 31(4), 345–358.
2. Breen, J. (2015). John Q: A Question of Ethics. Journal of Religion and Film, 19(1), 1–19.
3. Clouser, K. D. (2005). John Q and the Healthcare System: A Philosophical Analysis. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 26(3), 203–216.
4. Codey, R. (2002, February 21). Hollywood and Heart Transplants. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/21/opinion/hollywood-and-heart-transplants.html
5. Delgado, R. (2002, March 22). John Q. Wall Street Journal.
6. Filkins, L. (2002, March 10). Father Takes Hostages to Get Son’s Heart Transplant. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/movies/father-takes-hostages-to-get-son-s-heart-transplant.html
7. John Q. (2002). [Motion Picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.
8. John Q. (2018). In IMDb.
9. McNamara, M. (2002, February 15). A Life-and-Death Crisis Gets Hollywood Treatment in ‘John Q.’ Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-feb-15-et-mcnamara15-story.html
10. Pekmezovic, A. (2015). Movie John Q and the Socioeconomic Environment of Health Care in the United States. Serbian Journal of Management, 10(2), 249–259.