« iCan Project | Main | We the Media, Ch 8-10 »

November 17, 2005

Nothing is Insignificant?

Feuer: I am deeply touched, Excellency, that my insignificant affair -

Flint: No matter is insignificant to me. (137)

I cannot believe that Flint says that nothing is insignificant to him during this part, when earlier he called the life of a patient "one single unimportant case" to him!

I am a bit confused about exactly what happened to Feuermann. He was acquitted, but he still doesn't get any business where he works, but I don't know what he was accused of. But, whatever it is, I am wondering why Flint thinks it is more important than the life of the patient he let die. He needs to sort out his priorities!

Posted by LorinSchumacher at November 17, 2005 12:11 PM


You're right Lorin. He does need to get his priorities straight. I actually saw a lot of comments by these doctors that I would hope to NEVER hear a doctor today say. In my blog I actually chose Bernardhi's comment when he said that his job is to cure patients, or at least persuade them that he can do so. Like I don't know about you, but I would DEFINATELY hope that my doctor cared a little bit more about me than some of these doctors do their patients.

Posted by: Chera Pupi at November 17, 2005 7:37 PM

On my first blog about this play, ( http://blogs.setonhill.edu/LorinSchumacher/2005/11/the_value_of_hu.html#comments )
Andy made a comment about the people being hypocrtical. And in a way, I certainly think that Flint is. But, if you look at it in a different way, he is actually being quite consistant. In my first blog entry, Flint called the life of a person "one insignificant case" while in this one, he says "no matter is insignificant to me." While these statements are contradictory, I see that Flint is consistant in his motives for feeling the way he does. They all have to do with his work. When he was a doctor, he thought that the most important thing he could do was be able to help as many patients as possible. So to him, sparing that one life allowed him to help a greater number of others. Now that his position has changed, he feels it is his duty to make the matters of his constituients important to himself. In both cases he feels that he is following the duties of his profession. Which, in actuality, makes him very much like Bernhardi.

Posted by: Lorin Schumacher at November 28, 2005 12:59 PM

Great analysis, Lorin. Bernhardi's logic is just as rigid, though his values are slightly different. Both show perhaps too much pride in remaining consistent.

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at November 29, 2005 3:58 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?