Well wrapped film about USA hell care, haha! I saw it as a dramatic comedy and it was funny, hilarious at times, and very well played. Excellent storyline that makes enough sense to be almost believable as is. Good message of course with a good ending but the story had me gripped and laughing at the same time, all along.

This movie picks itself all on basis of its story. John Quincy Archibald's only son faints and falls down while playing base ball. On hospitalization it is found that he will need a heart transplant to live further. John's family is however not in the position to play huge hospital bill. Even his insurance coverage is not enough. Further when it comes to his notice that John's son is will be given discharge without treatment, he decides to hold the people from hospital hostages and provide proper treatment to his son.He would have died if people won't have known his real intention via news. Moreover the gun that he holds would have carried only one bullet to kill john himself and provide his own heart for his son. This is something that made this movie one of my favorites along with the reason that even if system is not enough, u can still have justice (as happens he does not requires to die to save his sons life).Must watch, highly recommended.

Burg and Cassavetes' (John, Q, 2002) melodrama about a family whose structure, health and happiness is being torn apart by monetary, political and unethical medical practices, has created an interesting discussion of ethics, more so than cinematographic criticism, on its behalf. Interestingly enough fourteen years later, we are put to task to examine bioethical issues outlined in this film. John Q is a film about a man who takes the healthcare system in his own hands in a violent manner after he finds his son needs a new heart whilst his insurance coverage has been changed and does not cover the transplant. He holds a room full of (ED), Emergency Room patients hostage with an empty gun in an attempt to get his son's name on the transplant list declaring "this hospital is under new management, Free Health Care for everyone" (John Q. 2002).(Q) and his family had their self-respect and respect for persons violated. Self-respect entails consideration of the decisions of autonomous persons and the protection of persons who lack decision making capacity as does Q and his family (Phillips, 2000). Lack of health literacy and the inability of the hospital system to engage with the patient are primary problems. Self-respect obligations necessitate treating persons with respect and keeping promises (Phillips, 2000). Promises were violated by Q's employer when they did not inform Q of the insurance change. Rebecca Payne, the hospital administrator, lied when in collusion, in an attempt to ambush Q in the ED. Therefore, Q's initial and continued action may be the result of indignation and ignorance, and rightly so. Says Q to his son before he is about to euthanize himself "Always keep your promises" (John Q, 2002).Q technically was acting unethically for he inhibited the autonomy of the other patients in the ED, even though the end justified the means by getting his son on the transplant list and a new heart. Additionally, Q was put to task by his wife's words to do something. I am not really sure why the onus was only on him do that something, though.The guiding, bioethical principle of beneficence was broken by Q when he put other persons in harm's way and instilled fear of death by gunshot, though he had an unloaded gun. The gun could, and did, force hostages to act in a manner that was harmful to one another to trump evil. Actually, the alternate evil character was a physical abuser to his girlfriend and a sociopath who received penance though he seemed to change his ways at the end, trumping evil. Though Q was acting in an evil manner by restricting person's liberty, he succeeded in catching and removing the sniper to remove evil and harm. Furthermore, Q promoted good by offering his own heart for transplant in the end. Informed consent for Q's own surgery is in question. It is not in intact for his son's surgery. He did not consult his wife. Though she would agree to a transplant for her son, she likely would not agree to the transfer of Q's heart to her son. She was not autonomous in decision making for her son. For Q, informed consent was true in disclosure, comprehension, consent and voluntariness, but not in competence. A person needs should not be under duress so they can be competent (Faden & Beauchamp, 1986). Additionally, Q tried to force the cardiologist to do Q's surgery and bear witness to suicide, a form of negligence, disallowing James Woods to do what he thought was necessary in his medical opinion (Faden & Beauchamp, 1986). Q's act of hostage taking was evil but the motive and objective was good in action, saving his son from death (JBC, 2008).The decision of the hospital administration to discharge Q's son due to financial constraint, reeks of injustice and to Michael's parents it is an act of hospice without saying so. The hospital is not doing due diligence through education and discharge planning. So the answer is Q acted morally, but unethically and in the manner of a caring and vigilante father. Q had options which he did not understand due to lack of health literacy. As stated earlier due to the pre-emptive discharge of Q's son in such an irresponsible manner, leaves an opening for Q to argue for a longer stay. Other options one could have taken would be to contact civil liberty organizations, advocate lawyers, the American Heart Association, the ethics committee of the hospital, the State Board of Medicine in Illinois, the AMA, the state insurance board, pediatric medical associations, Shriners, and any relevant benevolent society. I did not see a social worker involved either or a case manager.If Q was in California and on the Kaiser Permanente plan, his family would be in serious trouble. This health care systems are run by the insurance companies with doctors working for the insurance companies. My sister-in law, Mary Lombard died of late untreated multiple myeloma because Kaiser Permanente doctors ignored her pain and refused to do x-rays. Instead they sent her to chiropractors (Lombard, 2013). Within 6 months of her diagnosis, Mary at 45 years old was put to rest by her 83-year-old mother. That is hypocrisy.

Do not waste a couple hours on this stinker. I like DW usually but he is just boring and not believable as the "crazed Dad gone crazy for his dying son" role. The first hour or so of the movie is just so boring, and the acting by Woods and the other doctor is just bad. This is more of a bad TV movie not a 30 million dollar budget movie lol. Seriously, the part where DW rips his gun out on the Doctor to take everyone hostage is completely out of nowhere, the buildup by DW's character until that point, does NOT warrant his actions. He could've done a way better job at making his character more believable but maybe that's asking too much of him considering he usually plays the same type of roles in every movie.