1) Describe and characterize Ken Harrison:

Ken was a sculptor before the car accident. He has been hospitalised for 6 months and is now paralysed from the neck down. He’s a patient at the hospital, and he’s an old man, who wants to feel young and who misses ”the old times”. He’s a person who jokes a lot: “You’ll just have to make do with my backside …” (p. 7, line 6), “Have me on the floor Sister please.” (p. 7, last line), “Who said anything about a bikini?” (p. 31, line 29). All those jokes is a perfectly example of how much pervert he is.
Ken hates his life because of his situation and would rather die than being hospitalised: “Can’t you see that this is why I’ve decided that life isn’t worth living? I am not human and I’m even more convinced of that by your visit than I was before, so how does that grab you? The very exercise of your so-called professionalism makes me want to die.” (p. 34, line 28-34) and another example is at page 43, Act 2: “I therefore want to be discharged to die.” (Line 16). His career and his passion, depends on his ability to move. Kens situation is that, he is sentenced to be in a hospitals bed for the rest of his life.
He is suffering mentally and wants to be discharged from the hospital. Dr. Emerson, a consultant physician, won’t allow him to be discharged because he has no chance of survival in the condition he is in.

2) Do you think Ken’s personality and background helps or hinders the play’s discussion of free will?

I think, that Ken’s personality and background hinders the play’s discussion of free will. The physicians are really patronizing against Ken, and he can’t really get his will. But the physician’s decision is objective in preference to Ken’s, which is subjective. “Ours was an objective, his a subjective decision.” (p. 25, line 4). The objective decision is based on facts and the subjective is based on feelings. And that’s why the physicians need to be patronized against Ken in some situations:
“ KEN: Doctor, I didn’t give you permission to stick that needle in me. Why did you do it?
DR EMERSON: It was necessary. Now try to sleep… You will find that as you gain acceptance of the situation you will be able to find a new way of living.
KEN: Please let me make myself clear. I specially refused permission to stick that needle in me and you didn’t listen. You took no notice.
DR EMERSON: You must rely on us old chap. …” (p. 27, line 28-36) He’s not getting his free will and that because he has giving up on life. And they can’t just give him his will; because they know, that he just want to die.

3) Look up Etisk Råd on Google, then: “Tema om aktiv dødshjælp”, then: ”Begreber”, and write down their definitions of ”Aktiv dødshjælp” and ”Passiv dødshjælp” in Danish.
Translate these two definitions into English.

Aktiv dødshjælp – En uafvendeligt døende patient, der anmoder om at få afsluttet livet. I dansk lovgivning bruges termen drab på begæring. Internationalt er eutanasi det mest benyttede begreb.

Active euthanasia – A terminal patient, who requests to the end of the life. The Danish legislation used the term “killing on request”. Internationally, euthanasia is the most widely used concept.

Passiv dødshjælp – Betegnelse for afståelse fra at iverksætte eller fortsætte livsforlængede begandling og anvendelse af lindrende midler med eventual dødelig virkning.

Passive euthanasia - Designation of declining to initiate or continue life prolonging treatment, and use of palliatives with possible lethal effect.

4) Write a summary of “To argumenter imod aktiv dødshjælp fra Ole Hartling” in English.

The article “To argumenter imod aktiv dødshjælp” which is written by the journalist Ole Hartling, is about argumentations against active euthanasia. Should active euthanasia be legalised in Denmark or not?
One of the argumentations is: (1) “Active euthanasia can prevent unbearable and unnecessary suffering.” and the other is:
(2) “You will could respect the patients right of self-determination with the active euthanasia.” But is that right? Argumentation 1 can be contradicted with: “It is an absurd solution to the pains problem, that you can improve the life by destroying it. It’s a wrong assumption, to remove the pain by using active euthanasia.” (p. 2 in the article).
The other argumentation can be contradicted with: “The respect to the patients right of self-determination, are being more nuanced when it is related to a number of ethical issues. The right of self- determination is an illusion about having a free choice in all the life cases. But we’re talking about a choice, which is going to be taken by a human who is penetrated, afraid, despair and may already feel useless.” – says Ole Hartling.