The 1978 medical thriller Coma, directed by Michael Crichton, concludes with Dr. Susan Wheeler (Geneviève Bujold) exposing the criminal conspiracy at Boston Memorial Hospital. She successfully reveals the plot to induce comas in healthy patients for the purpose of harvesting their organs, ultimately leading to the downfall of the perpetrators but not necessarily a clean and happy ending for everyone involved.
A Grim Victory: Decoding the Final Scene
The climax of Coma centers around Susan’s relentless investigation, which leads her to the Jefferson Institute, a secluded and technologically advanced facility where the comatose patients are being kept alive on life support. She discovers that the hospital, in collusion with unscrupulous individuals, is profiting from organ transplants using organs obtained through these deliberately induced comas.
The final scene depicts Susan barely escaping the Jefferson Institute after a confrontation with the head physician, Dr. George Harris (Richard Widmark), who is revealed to be the mastermind behind the operation. She manages to transmit crucial data proving the conspiracy to her colleague, Dr. Mark Bellows (Michael Douglas), who then alerts the authorities.
While the immediate threat to Susan’s life is averted and the criminal activity is exposed, the ending is far from completely resolved. Several key aspects contribute to its ambiguous and unsettling nature:
- Justice is Not Fully Served: Although Dr. Harris is implicated, his ultimate fate remains unclear. The movie implies he will face consequences, but it doesn’t explicitly show his arrest or trial.
- Systemic Corruption Lingers: The film strongly suggests that the conspiracy involved multiple individuals and potentially extended beyond Boston Memorial Hospital. The ending doesn’t guarantee that all those complicit will be brought to justice. The feeling of deep-rooted corruption remains.
- The Fate of the Comatose Patients: The film focuses heavily on the conspiracy and Susan’s pursuit of the truth, leaving the fate of the comatose patients somewhat unresolved. While it’s implied they will be removed from the Jefferson Institute, the long-term prognosis and ethical implications are left to the viewer’s interpretation.
- The Psychological Toll: Susan’s relentless pursuit of the truth has taken a significant emotional toll on her. The ending offers no clear indication of her emotional recovery or future. She has seen the darkest side of medicine, and this experience undoubtedly leaves a lasting scar.
Therefore, the ending of Coma offers a partial victory. The conspiracy is exposed, but the resolution is incomplete, leaving the audience with a lingering sense of unease and a questioning of the ethical boundaries within the medical system.
Diving Deeper: Frequently Asked Questions About Coma‘s Conclusion
Here are some frequently asked questions that address the lingering questions and nuances surrounding the conclusion of Coma.
Unpacking the Conspiracy
-
FAQ 1: Was Dr. Wheeler’s initial suspicion based on valid evidence?
Yes, Dr. Wheeler’s suspicion was initially sparked by a statistically improbable cluster of coma cases occurring in young, healthy patients undergoing routine surgeries at Boston Memorial Hospital. Her attention to statistical anomalies formed the foundation of her investigation. She recognized that the frequency of these complications was far beyond what could be considered normal, suggesting a systemic problem.
-
FAQ 2: What was the primary motive behind inducing comas?
The primary motive was financial gain. The hospital, in collusion with individuals running the Jefferson Institute, was profiting from the harvesting and selling of organs from these intentionally induced comatose patients. The demand for organs for transplants created a lucrative black market, which the conspirators exploited ruthlessly.
-
FAQ 3: How did they induce the comas without raising suspicion?
The method involved altering the anesthetic gas mixture during routine surgeries. By subtly increasing the concentration of carbon monoxide, they could induce irreversible brain damage leading to a coma, all while appearing to be a rare but unfortunate surgical complication. This subtle manipulation made it difficult to detect without a thorough investigation.
The Characters and Their Fates
-
FAQ 4: What happens to Dr. Harris after Susan exposes the conspiracy?
The film does not explicitly show Dr. Harris’s arrest or trial. However, the implication is that he will face legal consequences for his role in the conspiracy. The data Susan transmitted to Dr. Bellows provides irrefutable evidence of his involvement, making his prosecution likely. The movie chooses to leave his explicit downfall to the audience’s imagination.
-
FAQ 5: Does Dr. Bellows face any repercussions for initially doubting Susan?
Dr. Bellows does not explicitly face repercussions within the film. His initial skepticism is portrayed as understandable, given the gravity and improbability of Susan’s accusations. He ultimately redeems himself by believing her and helping expose the truth. The film focuses more on his eventual support and validation of Susan’s claims.
-
FAQ 6: What is the significance of Susan’s solitary escape at the end?
Susan’s solitary escape underscores her independence and resilience. She is the only one who fully understands the extent of the conspiracy and has to fight alone to expose it. It emphasizes the vulnerability of whistleblowers and the personal sacrifices they often make in pursuit of justice.
Ethical and Medical Implications
-
FAQ 7: What are the ethical implications of the organ harvesting conspiracy?
The ethical implications are profound and disturbing. The conspiracy represents a gross violation of patient trust, informed consent, and the fundamental principles of medical ethics. It raises questions about the commodification of human life and the potential for corruption within the medical system when financial incentives override ethical considerations.
-
FAQ 8: Is such a conspiracy medically plausible?
While the specific details of the conspiracy in Coma might be considered sensationalized, the film taps into real anxieties about the potential for abuse within the medical system and the power dynamics between doctors and patients. The underlying premise, that medical professionals could exploit vulnerable patients for financial gain, raises valid ethical concerns, even if the specific methods are fictionalized.
-
FAQ 9: What message does the film convey about the power of corporate interests in healthcare?
Coma serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for corporate interests to corrupt healthcare. It suggests that when profit motives become paramount, patient welfare can be compromised. The film criticizes the influence of financial incentives on medical decision-making and the potential for exploitation when ethical safeguards are insufficient.
Lasting Impact and Interpretations
-
FAQ 10: How does the ending of Coma contribute to the film’s overall message?
The ambiguous and unsettling ending reinforces the film’s cautionary message. It suggests that exposing corruption is only the first step and that systemic change requires ongoing vigilance. The lack of a complete resolution serves as a reminder that the fight for ethical healthcare is a continuous process.
-
FAQ 11: What is the lasting legacy of the film Coma in popular culture?
Coma has had a significant impact on popular culture, contributing to the genre of medical thrillers and raising awareness about ethical issues in healthcare. It has influenced subsequent films and television shows that explore similar themes of medical malpractice, corporate greed, and the vulnerability of patients within the medical system. The film continues to be discussed and analyzed for its relevance to contemporary ethical debates.
-
FAQ 12: Why does Coma resonate with audiences even today?
Coma resonates with audiences because it touches upon universal fears about the medical system, the potential for abuse of power, and the fragility of human life. It explores themes of trust, betrayal, and the importance of standing up for what is right, even in the face of overwhelming odds. The film’s exploration of these timeless themes ensures its continued relevance and impact.