Implied Consent: Act IV, Scene II

(This scene takes place prior to the opening of the second day of the trial. ROBERTS is sitting in his hovermobile in front of the courthouse, with his monitor open. He has been observing the happenings inside the Grummond Laboratory Complex.)

ROBERTS (to self and audience): Mr. Mark, you are more reckless a man than I had judged. Evasion of the IRS! What person who values self-preservation would do that? Well, the IRS will catch up with you in due time. At least you won't testify here for a while. And my, this secret of the Estate's is a secret no more. Yet, if carried out, it is still bound to ruin my case! I cannot use the implied consent argument with somebody who walks and breathes and feels, as my argument for defining a human being goes. Now then, how to get out of this fix? Does Grummond have to walk and breathe and feel again? Let's think of this as a good, normal American would. A good, normal American has many preconceived notions about what life is and what it's not. He likes life, to an extent. But he also thinks, no, knows that death is a part of life, and has learned to accept it. He is very suspicious, at least, of any scheme that would attempt to deny death artificially. He accepts curing diseases, and even lengthening the human lifespan... to a point. But he does not like Frankensteinian creatures roaming about, and that's what Quintus Grummond would be, wouldn't he? He was dead; now he's alive. He's been revived through scary, unnatural, artificial means, which the good, normal American deems far more suspect than natural recoveries. I can play off of that mindset. I'll tell them that the Estate's intent is to make Quintus Grummond into another Frankensteinian machine, not truly human. Such abominations should not be allowed to exist, and their creators ought to be punished, implied consent or no implied consent. Yes, this involves changing my definition of a human being a bit, but who doesn't tamper with definitions these days? Besides, the modification is obvious in light of what I've been saying all along. Human being implies organic being, with none of those petty, cold, mechanistic add-ons. I will still need some semblance of proof to the public that this project exists, though. How about making that abominable abuse of science a headline story, so that it becomes common knowledge? Dan Bailey is covering the case; he can cover this, too. But I'll tip him off subtly, to make sure he doesn't think I'm conjuring some weird science fiction.

(ROBERTS dials BAILEY's number on his visual image transmitter. BAILEY enters the stage on the other side and picks up a similar device of his own.)

BAILEY: This is Daniel Bailey, Standard News, speaking.

ROBERTS: Dan, this is Trent.

BAILEY: Hi, Trent. What can I do for you?

ROBERTS: My, do I have a story for you.

BAILEY: Related to your lawsuit?

ROBERTS: You bet. Go to the Grummond Center for Botanical Studies. I know it may sound far-fetched, but the story is all in there.

BAILEY: Are you sure?

ROBERTS: One hundred percent.

BAILEY: What is it, then?

ROBERTS: You'll have to see it to believe it, Dan.

BAILEY: All right, Trent. I can trust you, I think.

ROBERTS: That depends on how you define trust.

BAILEY: Put a little reporter's spin on it, and it'll work.

ROBERTS: Put a little lawyer's spin on it, and it'll dazzle.

BAILEY (facetiously): What might dazzle you might not dazzle me.

ROBERTS: But it'll dazzle society, and society is all that counts.

BAILEY: Ah yes, that great collective subconscious. This stuff's really deep, Trent, but you were always into that deep stuff. I just pass it on to society. Society likes to know that it counts. I'll be there right away.

ROBERTS: That depends on how you define "be."

BAILEY: That depends on how you define "define."

ROBERTS: That depends on how you define "you."

BAILEY: Oh, can we really ever answer these questions?

ROBERTS (after a moment's pause): That depends. Of course, if you ever get the right answers, I'll sue you for extremist absolutist bigotry. Right answers are bound to offend someone, of course.

BAILEY (chuckles): Ah, yes, good times, Trent.

ROBERTS: Time is relative. Of course, so is the verb "is," when you come to think of it. All things are relative, even the statement that all things are relative. Put a lawyer's spin on it, and it'll make sense, somehow. But good times, anyway.

(The lights are dimmed.)

To read other parts of Implied Consent, go here.