Book Vs Film: The Clockwork Orange

Book Vs Film: The Clockwork Orange Glenn DW will tell us something about the book then we will give you a short summary of the book, then I will give you some information about the author. After that glenn VH show us some differences between the book and the movie. And for ending we will show you a fragment. We are going to discuss the book and the movie A Clockwork Orange. The first thing we want to say, is that the book is very hard to read. There are a lot of hard words in it and Alex and his three friends speak a dialect, called nadsat. Its the teenage vocabulary of the future. Glenn Vanhaeren also read the book in Dutch and it was also very difficult to read according to him, even in Dutch. because they use a lot of words that nobody understands. In the Dutch version of the book is a list with all the explanations of these words, in the English version there isnt. A few examples: To viddy is to see A droog is a friend Short summary A clockwork orange is a story about a young teenager named Alex living in near-future England. Alex leads a small gang of teenage criminals, Dim, Pete, and Georgie are the other members. They do things like robbing and beating men and raping women. Alex and his friends spend a lot of their time at the Korova Milkbar, thats an establishment that serves milk laced with drugs, such milk is called Milk-plus. Alex begins his narrative from the Milk bar, where the boys sit around drinking. When Alex and his gang leave the bar, they go on a crime. Their last crime was when they broke into an old womans house. She calls the police, and before Alex can get away, Dim hits him in the eye with a chain and runs away with the others. The police found Alex on the ground and take him to their office, where he later heard that the woman he beat and raped during the earlier robbery has died. Now hes become a murderer. Alex is sentenced to fourteen years in prison. He befriends the prison chaplain, who notices Alexs interest in the Bible. The chaplain lets Alex read in the chapel while listening to classical music, because Alex likes classical music. On one day Alex is selected as the first candidate for an experimental treatment called Ludovicos Technique, a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning. After being injected with a substance that makes him dreadfully sick, the doctors force Alex to watch exceedingly violent movies. In this way, Alex comes to associate violence with the nausea and headaches he experiences from the shot. The process takes two weeks to complete. After this process Alex can no longer enjoy classical music, which he has always associated with violence. After two years in prison, Alex is released, a harmless human being incapable of vicious acts. Soon, however, Alex finds hes not only harmless but also defenceless, as his earlier victims begin to take revenge on him. His old friend Dim and an old enemy named Billyboy are both police officers now, and they take the opportunity to settle old scores. They drive him to a field in the country, beat him, and leave him in the rain. When they leave him Alex goes to a nearby cottage and knocks on the door, begging for help. The man living there lets him in and gives him food and a room for the night. Alex recognizes him from two years ago as the man whose wife he raped, but the man does not recognize Alex. This man, F. Alexander, is a political dissident. When he hears Alexs story, he thinks he can use Alex to incite public outrage against the State. He and three of his colleagues develop a plan for Alex to make several public appearances. When they are speaking to each other He berates the men in  nadsat, which arouses the suspicion of F. Alexander, who still remembers the strange language spoken by the teenagers who raped his wife. Based on F. Alexanders suspicion, the men change their plans. They lock Alex in an apartment and blast classical music through the wall, hoping to drive Alex to suicide so they can blame the government. Alex does, in fact, hurl himself out of an attic window, but the fall doesnt kill him. While he lies in the hospital, unconscious, a political struggle ensues, but the current administration survives. State doctors undo Ludovicos Technique and restore Alexs old vicious self in exchange for Alexs endorsement. The author Life Anthony Burgess was an English author; he was borne in Manchester in 1917 and died in London in 1993. His sister Muriel died in 1918 Four days later his mother Elizabeth died at the age of 30 on November 1918, Burgess was one year old. After the death of his mother, Burgess was raised by his aunt, because his dad was unable to raise him. You could say that Burgess hasnt had a normal youth. Burgess did military service during WW II. He left the army in 1946, and became teacher. In 1954, Burgess joined the British Colonial Service as a teacher. But most of his time, he wrote and worked at his novels. At his death he was a multi-millionaire, leaving a Europe-wide property portfolio of houses and apartments. Work His real name is John Burgess Wilson, but he published under the pen name Anthony Burgess. In total, Burgess wrote more than ten novels. He wasnt only a novel writer, he also wrote screenplays (eg. The Spy Who Loved Me, a James Bond movie). Except from being active in the world of literacy, Burgess was also musician and composed regularly. Several of his pieces were broadcast during his lifetime on BBC Radio. He wrote The Clockwork orange in 1962. This is Burgess most famous novel. The film version of A Clockwork orange was released in 1971. 2) The novel Main Theme Burgess believed that the freedom to choose is the big human attribute, This belief provides the central argument of A Clockwork Orange, where Alex must follow the Ludovico treatment. When the State removes Alexs power to choose his own moral course of action, Alex becomes nothing more than a thing. The chaplain, the novels clearest advocate for Christian morals, addresses the dangers of Alexs Reclamation Treatment when he tells Alex that goodness is something chosen. Characters The main character of The Clockwork Orange is Alex. He is the anti-hero of the novel. Alex likes to name himself Alexander the Large; this was later the basis for Alexs claimed surname De Large in the 1971 film. Alex is the leader of a gang, the tree other member of his gang are George, Pete and Dim. The rival of Alex (and his gang) is Billyboy. Billyboy also haves a gang, these two gangs often fight with each other. Dr. Brodsky is a doctor who is the founder of the Ludovico technique. There is also another doctor, Dr. Branom. This is Brodskys colleague and co-founder of the Ludovico technique. He appears friendly towards Alex at first, before forcing him into the theatre to be psychologically tortured. Another important character in the novel is the prison chaplain. This is the only character who is truly concerned about Alexs welfare There are many other, rather small characters. E.g. The people who are terrorized by Alex and his gang. 3) Book vs Film Differences Age There are plenty differences between the book and the film. One of the big differences is the age of the characters. In the book the characters are younger as the characters in the film. I will give you two specific examples of these differences. The girl that is about to be raped by Billy Boys gang is ten years old in the book while looking at the film it is a young woman which is about to be raped by Billy Boys. After meeting two ten-year-old girls named Marty and Sonietta in a record shop, Alex takes home these girls and rapes them. This happens in the Book but in the film, the girls are about 14 years old. Although these differences dont change the story or the meaning of the story, they do change the way you look at the story. If you would see a ten-year-old girl which is being raped by a 15 year old young man, who looks like a man of at least 18 years old in my opinion, it is not realistic enough. Unlike a film, a book it is not being visualised for you and so you dont see it. Then its shocking to read that this girl is so young. Ending The ending of the story is also different between the book and the film because the last chapter, which is chapter 21, of the book was not filmed. In this chapter, Alex meets Pete. That was the third member of the original gang. Alex realises that he wishes to do the same, but his violence was an unavoidable product of his youth. The film is ending with a scene where you see a naked girl that is being raped and Alex saying I was cured, all right. Overall there are some differences but they have almost no influence on the story. Most of the differences are just some small details. The differences in age are only improving the story and the differences in the music cant even have any influence because you cant hear music when you are reading a book. Although both endings are different the almost say the same and that is that Alex wants to change but because of his violent childhood he will never be completely cured. Crucial Scene The scene takes place just before Alex is released. The Ludovico threatment has ended and it has worked. In a short presentation the doctors want to show what they archieved. (show part of movie from minute 81 -> 86) (read book pg. 93 95; all of us) Conclusion The book is hard to read, as mentioned before. The movie of the book is excellent, each chapter in the book is a scene in the movie. Although, there is a lot of explicit content in the movie, the story is good and there is a message in it. Thank you for your attention Euthanasia in Australia: Arguments For and Against Euthanasia in Australia: Arguments For and Against McKenzie Maviso â€Å"Research arguments for and against Euthanasia in Australia. Is it likely to be decriminalised in the future or not? By what rationale?† Innovations and technologies in medical sciences throughout the history have focused primarily on disease preventions to achieve better health outcomes. However, physicians are often confronted with extreme challenges in life-and-death circumstances, particularly with patients who are suffering from prolonged and debilitating illnesses. To alleviate such suffering, euthanasia or physician-assisted death is sometimes considered upon request from patients. While it remains a globally controversial issue in medical practice, it is performed legally in some countries as an optional medical intervention. This essay will examine the main arguments for and against the practice of euthanasia in Australia. It will then argue that euthanasia is not likely be legalised because of strong oppositions relating to medical code of ethics, political objections and legal justice system perspectives. Therapeutic interventions for patients suffering from chronic and prolonged debilitating illnesses can be challenging in medical practice. With the focus to provide best possible intervention, physicians often consider various interventions for patients to put an end to pain and suffering. In some cases, patients who are diagnosed with incurable illnesses, such as cancer, which often continues to its devastating state can be unbearable for them and their family members (Frost, Sinha, Gilbert, 2014). Similarly, in such difficult situations, euthanasia is often considered upon the request of the patients to end life intentionally from their poor health conditions. Euthanasia, a Greek word meaning a â€Å"good† or â€Å"gentle death† whereby a patient has control over death and is often viewed as a medical intervention performed by physicians to end life (Boudreau Somerville, 2014; Devakirubai Gnanadurai, 2014; Starr, 2014). Furthermore, Levy, et al., (2013) explain tha t it can be â€Å"active† in order to actively end a life, while â€Å"passive† is based on the deliberate suspension of medical treatments to hasten death. Euthanasia can also be performed as â€Å"voluntary† upon patients’ request, or â€Å"involuntary† without the permission of the patient (Adan, 2013). It is often considered upon the perception that the debilitating condition is certain to suffer extremely, and that this suffering can only be resolved by euthanasia upon the patient’s consent. For instance, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Oregon in the United States (US) have legitimate control measures for physician-assisted death, especially by considering patients’ conditions and choices of care (Levett, 2011; Pereira, 2011). Thus, euthanasia is often conducted under specific situations when the devastating illness prevails over the health of patients that causes unbearable discomforts and sufferings. There are two primary reasons that qualify physicians to perform euthanasia in relation to patient’s poor health status. Firstly, autonomy in patients are perceived as important and need to be recognized in any health care practice. Autonomy is described as an individual with full self-control over mind, body and capable of making critical decisions and choices (Frost, et al., 2014). Obviously, patients are primary decision-makers that have the rights to access health care services where appropriate. Respect for autonomy thus, is considered as a main reason in health care to allow patients to have complete control when making decisions for euthanasia (Sjostrand, Helgesson, Eriksson, Juth, 2013). Furthermore, Ebrahimi, (2012) claims that arguments supporting euthanasia are based on the concept of autonomy and self-determination enabling patients to make critical decisions without impacting others. Conversely, physicians are to respect the rights of patient should a choice is m ade regarding medical care. For instance, in devastating medical situations when suffering becomes intolerable, autonomy must be acknowledged for patients requesting euthanasia intervention (Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al., 2010; Trankle, 2014). As a result, recognizing the autonomy that lead to make critical choices and decisions relating to poor illnesses are often crucial during the course of care for both physicians and the patients. Secondly, constant pain and suffering experienced by patients with particular debilitating illness is another primary reason supporting the argument for euthanasia or physician-assisted death. Prolonged discomforts and sufferings have always been the basis for advocates in favour for legalization. Any therapeutic measures administered to patients must not be focused only on recovery processes, but also to enhance reliefs and comforts that are revealed in the sufferings (Lavoie, et al., 2014; Kucharska, 2013). In the same way, Frost, et al., (2014) maintain that to avoid terrible pain and suffering is an obvious indication why euthanasia may be justified. Although, suffering is a main reason used to explain euthanasia, Karlsson, Milberg and Strang (2012) further claim that patients with anticipatory fears, sufferings, and uncertainty in relation to the continuity of treatments often contemplate on this intervention. Providing therapeutic care to patients who are struggling amidst thei r illnesses can be challenging, but for some patients, physician-assisted death is a merciful and honourable act that relieves intense suffering (Boudreau Somerville, 2014). Nevertheless, Devakirubai and Gnanadurai (2014) argue that pain is not the only reason for some patients with poor prognosis requesting death, but often symptoms that may facilitate unbearable experiences such as: persistent vomiting, incontinence, fatigue, discomfort and paralysis may also influence request for euthanasia. Therefore, patients who are undergoing extreme sufferings to the extent of desiring for euthanasia deserve consented death, and it is physicians’ legal obligation to fulfil a desired intervention within their scope of practice. Although euthanasia is regarded as an alternative treatment in certain prolonged illnesses, there are several main arguments that oppose this medical intervention. These arguments against euthanasia are established due to the following reasons; medical code of ethics, political objections, and legal justice system. First of all, medical ethics often enable medical professionals to provide care within the scope of their practice without causing harm to patients, instead assist them to achieve optimal health benefits. Myers (2014) claims that medical ethics are often determined by how physicians assist patients to cope with preventive and curative treatments during the practice. In every aspect of health care, physicians’ are to protect their patients and provide care that is based on mutual trust and confidence that do not interfere with their code of ethics. In addition, physician-patient relationship is built on common trust, in which physicians’ expertise and knowledg e are fully exercised to improve patients’ wellbeing without prejudice and negligence (Myers, 2014; Malpas, et al., 2014). However, purposeful termination of life for patients suffering from terminal illnesses, may undermine trust and confidence of physicians, and eventually may limit the protection offered to patients during the care (MacLeod, et al., 2012; Doyal Doyal, 2001). Despite devastating health conditions, medical ethics should not be neglected during medical interventions, and focused on achieving satisfactory health outcomes for patients. Therefore, medical practices that undermines the value of patients’ health rights and wishes can be regarded as unethical within medical context. Another argument focuses on political objections in relation to euthanasia. Although, in some countries, legislative reforms have been passed by the government to permit euthanasia, its intervention is associated with a strong political agenda opposing its practice within the medical landscape, such as in Australia. For example, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly approved the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, was aimed to assist terminally ill patients the right to request voluntary euthanasia (Nicol, Tiedemann, Valiquet, 2013). Unfortunately, the bill has triggered intense criticism and was condemned by the federal parliament for several reasons. One of the reason as being â€Å"culturally† unacceptable, particularly for elderly indigenous seeking medical assistance (Kerridge Mitchell, 1996). This means that such law will prevent indigenous elderly population to seek appropriate care, and would eventually deny them from accessing basic health services. Anot her main reason that opposes the bill to legalise euthanasia was the firm opposition from ‘conservative’ liberals and key members of Labor’s right-faction in federal parliament, and that politicians need to have adequate information and knowledge in order to make good public policy (Plumb, 2014). A well-informed and collective decisions are of high importance to provide practical legislative policies for euthanasia. Regardless of overwhelming public support to permit euthanasia, Trankle (2014) affirms that it has remained illegal in Australia since the bill was dismissed. Furthermore, Plumb, (2014) argues that medical and legal experts are against its legitimacy, and although, attempts to legalise the practice in South Australia and Tasmania are apparent, the law on voluntary euthanasia is limited for changes in the future. Besides, professional organizations such as the Australian Medical Association (AMA) does not have a strong position regarding bills on eutha nasia consequently of different views and opinions shown from medical practitioners. This has also made the federal parliament to provide rationales that rejected the likelihood to legalise euthanasia in Australia (Plumb, 2014; Nicol, et al., 2013). Legalising euthanasia would likely to result in serious effects by changing medical practice, and that would affect physicians’ clinical roles. The law against euthanasia still remains and thus, it is unlikely to be decriminalised in the future. The other argument is that the deliberate termination of life due to prolonged medical condition may be unethical and against criminal laws. Most importantly, life must be valued and assisting death for terminally ill patients would require legal justice systems to be effected. According to Norwood, Kimsma and Battin (2009), physicians who conduct euthanasia would eventually lead to patients being killed against their will. In addition, active intervention which has a primary intention of killing, despite the patient’s consent is a criminal offence and is a homicide (McLellan, 2013; Ebrahimi, 2012). Similarly, MacLeod, Wilson, and Malpas (2012) claim that assisting in death with or without consent and regardless of the medical situation is a crime. , because of the integral value of human life. Furthermore, Plumb (2014) claims that euthanasia is not likely to be legalised, it is against criminal law and physicians must argue in the court that their conduct was â€Å"reasonabl e†. Often killing an innocent human life is ethically wrong in itself thereby respect awarded to human lives would be undermined (Kucharska, 2013; Varelius, 2013). Therefore, debilitating illnesses leading to death should be accepted as a natural event, rather than prematurely instigated by any medical interventions. Furthermore, arguments for and against euthanasia have continued to persist controversially in public, medical and justice sectors. These arguments have led to slippery slope issues, especially in relation to patients who are suffering from devastating health conditions. It has been argued that assisting death to patients with undergoing sufferings would mean setting precedence and increasing the rate for unnecessary death (Shah Mushtaq, 2014). Despite these arguments, some countries have certain laws that permit euthanasia, particularly for patients with terminal health status. For instance, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have guidelines and procedures established that specifically allow euthanasia with respect to their legal system (Pereira, 2011). In addition, the State of Oregon in the United States (US) has passed â€Å"Death with Dignity Act† to conduct euthanasia under strict criteria, considering patients’ consent (Blakely Carson, 2013). This law has enab led Oregon the legal responsibilities for physician-assisted death. However, legalising euthanasia in Australia will not likely to benefit all patients, but would continue to spark relevant arguments from some medical professionals, the federal parliament, and legal justice systems. According to Plumb (2014) there are controversies challenging the proposed legislation for euthanasia, and sufficient evidence is needed to make reasonable decisions. Therefore, the possibility of legalising physician-assisted death is seemed limited in the future as a result of differing views shown in parliamentary debates. To conclude, euthanasia still remains as a debatable issue around the world. It has generated serious discussions within the public, medical practice, politics and legal justice system. Although, it was considered an alternative medical intervention, general arguments against its legality seem to focus on undermining the patient-physician trust and confidence, thereby altering the integrity of medical ethics. Moreover, medical practice that have been motivated by empathetic care, reluctance to amend and legislate bills with respect for human dignity, and considering euthanasia as a criminal offense have limited the probability of decriminalisation in Australia. In spite of strong opposition on euthanasia, a collaborative and practical policy frameworks on palliative and end-of-life care are therefore, necessarily required from the health care system, the federal government, and the legal justice system to strengthen and safeguard medical practice. Word Counts: 2025 References Adan, M. (2013). Euthanasia: Whose Right is it Anyway? Ohio State Undergraduate Review, 1-9. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001context=muna_adan Blakely, B., Carson, L. (2013). What Can Oregon Teach Australia about Dying? Journal of Politics and Law, 6(2), 30-47. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n2p30 Boudreau, D. J., Somerville, M. A. (2014). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Phycicians Ethicists Perspectives. Medicolegal Bioethics, 4, 1-12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MB.S59303 Devakirubai, E., Gnanadurai, A. (2014). Euthanasia An Overview with Indian Nursing Perspective. Asian J. Nursing Education Research, 4(1), 56-60. Retrieved from http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ajnervolume=4issue=1article=012 Doyal, L., Doyal, L. (2001). Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legalised. BMJ, 323, 1079-1080. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/pdf/1079.pdf Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The Ethics of Euthanasia. Australian Medical Student Journal, 3(1), 73-75. Retrieved from http://www.amsj.org/archives/2066 Frost, T. D., Sinha, D., Gilbert, J. B. (2014). Should Assisted Dying be Legalised? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 9, 1-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3 Karlsson, M., Milberg, A., Strang, P. (2012). Suffering and Euthanasia: A Qualitative Study of Dying Cancer Patients Perspectives. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(5), 1065-1071. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1156-9 Kerridge, I. H., Mitchell, K. R. (1996). The Legislation of Active Voluntary Euthanasia in Australia: Will the Slippery Slope Prove Fatal? Journal of Medical Ethics, 22, 273-278. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.5.273 Kucharska, E. (2013). Euthanasia Is it a Murder or Charity? Clinical Perspective. E-Theologos, 4(1), 97-108. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/etheo-2013-0009 Lavoie, M., Godin, G., Vezina-Im, L.-A., Blondeau, D., Martineau, I., Roy, L. (2014). Effect of Knowing Patients Wishes and Health Profession on Euthanasia. Palliative Care Medicine, 4(1), 1-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000169 Levett, C. (2011). Dying with Dignity The Case for End of Life Choices. Australian Nursing Journal, 11(8), 48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/855629200?accountid=10382 Levy, T. B., Azar, S., Huberfeld, R., Siegel, A. M., Strous, R. D. (2013). Attitudes towards Euthanasia Assisted Suicide: A Compasrison between Psychiatrists other Psycicians. Bioethics, 27(7), 402-408. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01968.x MacLeod, R. D., Wilson, D. M., Malpas, P. (2012). Assisted or Hastened Death: The Healthcare Practitioners Dilemma. Global Journal of Health Science, 4(6), 87-98. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081341961?accountid=10382 Malpas, J. P., Wilson, M. K., Rae, N., Johnson, M. (2014). Why do older people oppose physician-assisted dying? A Qualitative Study. Palliative Medicine, 28(4), 352-359. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216313511284 McLellan, I. (2013). The End of Life Issues Part 2. Indian Journal of Respiratory Care, 2(2), 258-261. Myers, J. (2014). Medical Ethics: Context is the Key Word. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 5, 1030-1045. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2014.516134 Nicol, J., Tiedemann, M., Valiquet, D. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: International Experiences. Library of Parliament, 14-15. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-67-e.pdf Norwood, F., Kimsma, G., Battin, M. P. (2009). Vulnerability and the Slipery Slope at the End-of-Life: A Qualitative Study of Euthanasia, General Practice and Home Death in The Netherlands. Oxford Journals, 472-480. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmp065 Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Rurup, M. L., Pasman, H., Roseline, W., van der, A. H. (2010, July). The Last Phase of Life: Who Requests and Who Recieves Euthanasia or Physician-assisted Suicide? Medical Care, 48(7), 596-603. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbea75 Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls. Current Oncology, 18(2), 38-45. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/ Plumb, A. (2014). The Future of Euthanasia Politics in the Australian State Parliaments. Australian Parliamentary Review, 29(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=513534504481857;res=IELHSS Shah, A., Mushtaq, A. (2014). The Right to Live or Die? A Perspective on Voluntary Euthanasia. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(5), 1159-1160. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5777 Sjostrand, M., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., Juth, N. (2013). Autonomy-based Arguments Against Physician-assisted Suicide Euthanasia: A Critique. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16(2), 225-230. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-9365-5 Trankle, S. A. (2014). Decisions that Hasten Death: Double Effect and the Experiences of Physicians in Australia. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(26), 1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-26 Varelius, J. (2013). Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-assisted Suicide, and the Right to Do Wrong. HEC Forum, 25(3), 229-243. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-013-9208-2 1