How can I defend Frankenstein against the charge of malpractice and negligence?
Question by Michael L : How can I defend Frankenstein against the charge of malpractice and negligence? My class is having a mock trial, and I am an “attorney.” The case question is, “Was Dr. Frankenstein guilty of malpractice and medical negligence?” I am wondering if anybody knows a couple of good reasons to defend Frankenstein against this charge. Also, if anyone knows any good questions to ask any of the characters, please let me know! Thank you in advance! Best answer:
Answer by V
He knew who had killed his friend,brother,and wife. But he did not say anything. The beast was his child,his creation. But since no legal documents connected him. He can only, be an accomplice of covering crimes. But if you can prove that he himself created the creature for the purpose of harming those. Then you can throw the responsibility on him. But as we all know that wasnt his plan.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
I didn’t know he was treating a patient, I thought Frankenstein Monster was already dead, then brought to life. I only saw the film, though. Maybe the storyline in the book is different.
Three issues: One, class action lawsuit seeing as the creature is composed of several men?
Two, Don’t ones universal human rights expire at death?
Three, I take it we’re using modern day standards of law and not those of the 19th century? (the time of the crime)
I’d begin with presupposing the other side’s argument. Starting off with something like, “How many of you could leave a newborn alone? How many of you could abandon him? Someone who has committed such a crime is guilty of negligence at best and is surely a monster. (Pause for dramatic effect). But my client did not leave a baby alone, or even a child. He left a fully grown, sentient being, with an adults body and mind. He trusted that this fully developed creation was both capable and in full possession of his own free will. We stand here today to decide whether Victor Frankenstein is guilty of malpractice and negligence, but we need to ask ourselves by what standards are we to assess his guilt? What laws, rules, or practices were even in use, governing a situation like the one in which my client found himself? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t recall any laws stating, “When one reanimates a corpse, it is mandatory that the physician is present for 1-3 hours following reanimation.”
That might do to start an opening argument. I’d also mention that what the creature ultimately desires from Victor is something that he simply cannot give him, and that is paternal love. No physician owes a patient this. I’ve heard critical arguments made which state Victor was trying to play God or overrule mother nature by becoming a “mother” himself, but in reading the beginning, we know that he is simply doing what the guy who brought back the dinosaurs did in Jurrasic Park. Ian Malcolm (the chaos theorist) states of him, “he was so busy trying to see if he could, that he never thought to consider if he should”. That quote applies perfectly to Victor Frankenstein. It is pure scientific ambition at work. Trying to make it more is not supported by the novel we have in front of us.
I’d add the above facts along with the questions, “Should Dr. Frankenstein have brought the creature to life? If we ask the creature, he will tell us, No. But that sad fact is not the question we have before us. Ours is to settle whether or not he guilty of malpractice or negligence. Tell me, if you practiced “medicine” during this time in which the creature was brought to life; in which the mentally ill and infirm were locked away, treated little better and many times worse than animals, what likely do you think the creature’s treatment would have been were he to be captured? Wasn’t it a kinder decision to allow him his freedom, rather than to do the “responsible” thing and turn him over, to a fellow medical professional? The prosecution will call this “negligence” and “malpractice”. I urge you to see this for what it is. It was kindness. It was freedom. Whether or not Victor Frankenstein was repelled by his creation is irrelevant. He did not only the right thing, he acted compassionately.