The Body as a Site of Conflict in Brian Clark s Play Whose Life Is It Anyway?

Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1978) By the British dramatist Brian Clark, deals with the theme of patient s autonomy vs. medical authority. Euthanasia is a highly debated subject that divides people into two camps; the first supports the autonomy of the patient and the right to end suffering, and the second emphasises the value of human life. Ken Harrison, who loses his ability to move after being in a car accident, fights in two fronts with men of medicine and men of law, to gain his right to end his own life and suffering, shedding the light on some legal, medical, and ethical issues related to health-care providing.Whose Life Is It Anyway? is a play about a young sculptor named Ken Harrison; it starts with the hospitalisation of Ken, who is critically injured in an automobile accident and left with an irreversible quadriplegia. Though his condition is stable, his paralysis is permanent and requires him to stay under a long-term care facility in order to stay alive. He is trapped inside a useless body with little enthusiasm to continue life. In this play, Brian Clark (1978) puts forward critical arguments both in favour of and against euthanasia. The title of the play, Whose Life Is It Anyway? is a question directed to the audience; it initiates the play s main argument and suggests that there are conflicting views. Those of Ken s, on one hand, and on the other, the hospital staff s represented by Dr. Emerson, Dr. Scott, Dr. Travers, Sister Anderson, Mrs. Boyle, and nurse Sadler, who believe that Ken s life is valuable and should be preserved.Euthanasia is defined as a mercy killing, its origin in Greek is of two words: the first word is eu, meaning good, and the second one is thanatos, which means death.1 The word implies an intentional end of one s life based on personal decision and will. This is mainly done to end sufferings and pain that can be attributed to several medical or mental problems. Rodney Syme considers euthanasia the most effective form of palliation of intolerable and unrelievable suffering, from the suffering individual s point of view,2 while Ronald Dworkin defines it simply as deliberately killing a person out of kindness.