My health assignment was based on this article....I found it very interesting. I agreed with the comment posted by "Bob". http://charactercounts.org/michael/2010/02/the_babys_not_dying_6584.html#comments My stand is against Jack's decision. Read and comment.
Hence the fact that I believe that Jack should’ve been seen more as a very generous person, instead of naïve, I strongly agree with Bob’s comment. Perhaps jack was being a bit naïve, since he didn’t question the women with the baby and assumed right away that she was in need. His family does come first before anything,. Who knows, he probably needed that money, but felt sorrow for the woman. He obviously is a poor decision maker. Even though we are not given any other information about the woman, one can assume she is practically unfit for caring for a child.
Jack’s wife, on the other hand, is a good hearted person. In the end she says, “I’m so proud to be married to a man with such a generous heart”. I feel that she should have been given the money. After all, family comes first. On the contrary, it is obvious that his son was being ignorant and very disrespectful to his own father.
The only thing that the woman deserved, was time in prison. The baby probably deserved the money, but being under the care of an unfit mother is not always the case. He or she, she be taken away from the woman and placed with a family whom will provide it with care.