Implied Consent: Act II, Scene II

This is a part of Mr. Stolyarov's play, Implied Consent. To navigate through the various parts of the play, go here.

(Enter MARK, VICTORIA, and the SERVANT, into the gathering of guests. There is now a platform on which TRENT ROBERTS stands while several REPORTERS are waiting in anticipation for him to begin to speak. ROBERTS makes a subtle hand gesture to VICTORIA, signaling for her to approach him. OSWALD is already on the platform slightly behind the lawyer. Once VICTORIA ascends, ROBERTS whispers to her and OSWALD.)

ROBERTS: I will handle this conference for you marvelously; you need not expend a moment's effort on it. Watch how I can turn this crowd in our favor, how I can reach deep into their souls and touch their true sympathies.

ROBERTS: (begins speech)

Ladies and gentlemen, you are likely all curious as to the reasons why my esteemed clients, the family, kin, and legal heirs of Quintus Grummond, have filed this suit against Mr. Grummond's own Estate. Their reasons may at first appear to us to be unusual, but we need to think about this, and try to put ourselves in their shoes.

First, it is necessary to ascertain that Quintus Grummond is indeed dead, for he cannot be said to exhibit the fundamental signs of life. Life is more than just some arrangement of molecules, or the movement of some bodily machinery, such as the heart or lungs. Life must be able to sustain itself on its own. Life requires a central organ, a brain, to coordinate its workings. Mr. Grummond, as is known universally, is presently brain dead, and thus lacks such a self-contained means of direction. Rather, he is dependent on, nay, is, a mere machine, a mere extension of the life support machine that currently pumps air into his lungs and induces the tissue of his heart to contract. These bodily functions have their source not in Mr. Grummond's own mind, but rather in an external device which is not in itself alive. If Mr. Grummond's corpse is maintained by something that is not alive, it cannot be said to be alive itself.

Now, you may agree with my clients that Mr. Grummond has become a mere extension of a machine, but you may still be wondering why my clients wish to terminate such a machine. Machines are not all bad, right? Well, this one is. Think about what would happen if a machine took your rightful money against your desire, and required you to sustain it besides? What if a machine prevented you from living the life you wanted to live and burdened you with obligations that have no greater purpose in being fulfilled?

Look back to your own parents. They were probably good people, and raised you well. But at some point in time, you wanted independence from them. You wanted your own life and the ability to make your own decisions. You wanted to be free of their control. But how would you feel if you could not dissociate yourself from them, if your parents' control over your adult lives and fortunes extended even beyond their death? Well, here we see a parent of one of my clients controlling my client'sfortune after his death. And this parent is not even the good human being he used to be anymore. He is dead as a human being, and has become a machine. Would you want a machine controlling your ability to be independent? Would you want machines to run your life? No. We, people, real, living, breathing, feeling people, ought never bow down to a machine. We ought to be able to control the machines as we see fit. And if we see that a machine is impeding our lives, we should be able to destroy it. This is what this case is about.

There is a tried-and-true principle in bioethics, which recognizes that a man on life support is nothing more than a machine deprived of self-direction, a principle which states that, in such a case, that man's closest relatives, the people who had shared the most joy, suffering, and understanding with that man during the course of his lifetime, should have the power to act in their best understanding of the human needs in the family, as well as the memory of the now defunct man, who had once been human and shared with them a certain sense of dignity and humanity, a sense that was taken away from him on life support. This power is called implied consent, to be used for the preservation of the dignity of the afflicted, for becoming a machine holds no dignity, and for the lightening of an already heavy and tragic burden on the family of him who has suffered.

Unfortunately, the exercise of implied consent by my clients for the termination of Quintus Grummond's life support is blocked by the provisions of Mr. Grummond's own will. In it, Mr. Grummond has created yet another machine which has devoured all of his wealth and property for itself. This machine, unlike Mr. Grummond's corpse on life support, is not a passive one, but rather a monster, a corporation without a soul, all the cold, callous, dry workings of a business without the heart of a human being to guide them. Rather than being rightfully passed on to my clients, the Estate of Grummond has obtained an existence of its own, with all the rights of a legal person, but none of the compassion, none of the spontaneity, none of the organic life that defines us men. And this is what is robbing my clients, breathing, feeling human beings, from getting even the slightest alleviation of the immense suffering they are experiencing due to the loss of a man very dear to them. Even if designed by a man, the Estate of Grummond has fallen out of his control, for he is now dead. Even if Mr. Grummond had the best intentions, he is no longer with us to fulfill them. Instead, the Estate, a monstrous economic machine, is with us, and ought to be dissolved before its uncaring essence tramples on us all without regard for the finer aspects of life which make it worth living. This is a simple demand from my clients, and an urgent one. I am now open to your questions.

(Widespread applause. The REPORTERS are eager for an opportunity to put forth their inquiries.)

REPORTER 1: What are the legal barriers to nullifying a document such as a will?

ROBERTS: Nothing that a good deal of sense cannot overcome. A will, like every legal document, has its limitations. My clients can see perfectly how a man can designate his fortune to go a real live person, but, when the beneficiary is not a person, nor even an established organization, but rather some soulless conglomerate created and regulated by the will itself, we enter legally ambiguous territory. My clients believe that this will is not proper nor typical nor expected, that it violates the spirit and purpose of wills by robbing a man's next of kin of their rights of implied consent and inheritance. Thus, to preserve the true meaning of a will, we are willing to challenge this one.

REPORTER 2: Are you afraid to go up against a major financial entity?

ROBERTS: My clients will be frank with you and with the good people here. Yes, my clients are afraid, for they are human beings. They can feel things like fear. They can feel them here and now in their beautiful and terrible nature. This is what makes them human. What they are facing cannot feel any fear, for it is not human, and, not having such fear, it does not have the human weaknesses that my clients have. But human weaknesses are also human strengths, able to overcome the simplistic, predictable rationalism of dead machines like the Estate of Grummond. This is why we will win this one, I hope, hope being another human feeling, by the way.

REPORTER 3: Mr. Roberts, do you feel that the outcome of this case will ride on the momentum of your stunning victory in Spike the Poodle v. The Health Insurance Companies of America?

ROBERTS: My clients--- (clears his throat as he recognizes his slip of the tongue) my apologies... I do see a compelling parallel between that most vital case and this one. When I faithfully defended my client Spike the Poodle and brought about a court ruling mandating low-cost, affordable health insurance provisions for all the pets of America, I, too, was facing a soulless conglomerate guided by corporate greed and an obsession with the bottom line above all human-ahem-organic living creatures' needs. This is what I think the Estate of Grummond also is, as it is designed to ravenously pursue its own bottom line above the human needs of my clients.

REPORTER 4: On the subject of feelings, how do you feel about poodles, Mr. Roberts?

ROBERTS: Poodles are fine creatures, of course! This is why the Spike case was so important. Alongside the health insurance ruling, the court also declared that these fine animals can have a government-funded Union of Attorneys to plead their specific cases in court. What a splendid development...

(The voices fade into the background until they are no longer audible, while the scene darkens, until only a small spotlight remains, focusing on MARK.)

To read other parts of Implied Consent, go here.