John Q and Categorical Imperatives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i73XQAeuXI

Immanuel Kant developed categorical imperatives that morally bind us to act in an unconditional manner despite our purpose in any given circumstance. He said that if the line was crossed that we as people will never be able to go back.  In the movie John Q, the very nature of the complexity of our problems is portrayed in an agonizing ordeal. The movie starts out by introducing the family life of a lower to middle-class family that is having financial difficulties. The son falls ill and his parents are notified that he will need a heart transplant if he is to survive. The hospital refuses to place the boy on a waiting list of transplant recipients until payment is received. The fathers insurance plan doesn't completely cover the cost of the operation. Of the $250,000 bill, his HMO leaves the family in a financial burden of $75,000 to be paid out of pocket. Through fund-raising the family is unable to meet the cost and the hospital decides to release the boy. Desperation and a father's love for his son, John Quincy Archibald takes matters into his own hands. He takes occupants of the hospital's ER hostage and demands his son's name to be placed on the list. Later, he demands his son be brought to the ER where the surgeon is also being held against his will. Through negotiations John feels that time is running out and he is faced with an even more difficult choice. His heart is a match with his son's heart, and he plans to take his life in order to save his son's. The twist is that his handgun was never loaded, and he had one bullet which was intended to take only John's life. He had no intentions of harming others, only to save his son. The doctor states that the operation would be unethical, but decides to do it after contemplation. Where does this situation fit in to categorical imperatives? Kantian philosophy may suggest that holding people against their will is unacceptable under any circumstance, or that this ordeal passed moral constraints set in place by society. In a situation such as John's, one must ask themselves what they would do, let their child die, or act out as John did? John may have crossed the lines, but what about the hospital? The surgeon and administration knew the outcome of the son's release. They knew that they have the capacity to save his life, the only thing stopping them from doing so was money. Monetary gain over ones fate seems to be crossing the lines that Kantian philosophy discusses. As the hospital crossed the line it caused John to also go even further beyond the moral constraints. The surgeon also crosses the line by agreeing to do the transplant knowing that the consequences could mean disbarment. Immanuel Kant stated that if moral obligations were crossed, those obligations would continue to be traversed in a successively aggressive manner. The movie John Q illustrates Immanuel Kant's philosophy of irreversible moral degradation.