Did I pass a certain age or naivety to suspend disbelief for something like Midsommar...
Granted the atmosphere made are pretty well done, you can see thoughts put into normalizing the freaky rituals. The culty feeling is also quite solid, albeit the frequent use of ominous sounds.
The "thesis fight" was so idealistic as if you can call dibs on any topic... Within the science community, people often work on the same project, and publication happens in parallel. There's gonna be people writing on the subject. To think that you can get exclusives is not only self-righteous, but also shows a blindness to the fact that others don't have any obligation to follow your moral codes.
And to think "Elder disapproves" is gonna stop people from writing. Nothing is sacred in observation and reporting, people will find out and rituals are exposed. If you already let the outsiders in, they will bring the secrets out that's just how humans and story-telling works. With heightened technology, it will be more and more difficult for these cults to keep themselves as secretes, especially if they would let outsides in, and with people that intended to extract the secrets of these isolated societies. Although I guess never letting them out is a way to avoid that.
Like many other films, scripts that focus on one aspect of finishing tend to overlook some other aspects. But hey, that last Christian scene was hilariously creepy.
Thursday, 19 March 2020
Wednesday, 11 September 2019
On blood transfusion of Jehovah's witnesses --- "The Children Act" Movie
It is understandable that since the movie's main perspective is on the female protagonist's life and her struggles to balance life and work, that the story of the Jehovah's witness is more of a setup, not the primary focus on such a debate.
Nevertheless, I'd like to explore the medical perspective in dealing with such a dilemma, taking into account the current day medical consensus.
Doctors respect patient autonomy, that if there's a guarantee that the patient understood their conditions, the medical procedure proposed, the consequence of refusing treatment (in this case, highly likely death), and has the mental capacity to comprehend and reason their way to their decision, then as doctors we really wouldn't have any qualms about their decision.
And then there's the beneficence perspective. As doctors, educated with the current medical practise and mostly understands the medical consequences of people's decisions better than themselves, foreseeing the undesirable medical outcomes due not to our limitations in technology, but due to a personal choice, gives an unsatisfactory feeling almost as if we have failed to help them. Personally, I accept those personal choices of the patient, given the conditions mentioned above.
In the courtroom exchange, the lawyer for the parents brings up legitimate risks of transfusion. However, her citation was the WHO, which oversees statistics over the globe, which includes those of developing countries with less stringent testing standards for their blood, potential contaminations in the process of extracting, storage, and quality control of their blood product. Assuming the plot takes place in the UK, at the setting of the film still one of the highest quality healthcare any nation can provide, the more dangerous complications of transfusion are almost nonexistent. Even if they do occur, almost all the mentioned conditions (save for hepatitis C, CJD) are treatable, albeit more difficult in a leukaemic patient.
In this case, the leukaemic boy will almost surely die without treatment. His inability to generate any blood cell is the highest of emergencies for it is an imminent danger towards death. Which is irreversible, untreatable as far as we are aware. Under
From a religious perspective. They mentioned that blood contains one's soul, that transfusion is pollution. This view seemed illogic, since the blood bank, in their logic, represents the effort of all those people who willingly sacrificed parts of their own life, in hopes that in times like Adam's, their souls can help resuscitate someone in need. This sounds a lot nobler than what seems to be Mr Henry the husband's perception. His (and by extension, his church's) view that this somehow pollutes the recipient seems to take another person's kind soul, and crushes it.
It is also seen that the Elders the husband mentioned are giving him guidances of the church, guiding his choice, but why should some remote person who does not represent the interest of the child be placed in a position of such enormous influence. While religious persons like to consider their mentors in higher positions within the church holds more power and better represent god, they are ultimately still human, and by interpreting the texts they derived their own, "contaminated" versions of gods teaching. It is unreliable, especially in such a high stake situation. Mr Henry the husband also mentions that science like religion teaching is not always understood at the time. His following strong stance on homosexuality, masturbation, etc. seems extraordinary in that he is cherrypicking what he decides to be open to interpretation, and what is irrefutable truth in his view, without complementing any justification. This embodies a primary issue with religions. When practised by those without efforts in challenging the texts against empirical evidence in life, it becomes a convenient mental crutch. Whenever they're challenged by phenomena in life that goes contrary to their belief or faces with high-stake decisions, they always have the "god says so" and "god works in mysterious ways" shields to fall back on, and thus ends their own critical thinking and openmindedness. In effect, their lives become simpler, since they are no longer in the driver seat for their own lives. They shift responsibilities for god to decide, and at the same time killed their free will.
It is also peculiar that the lawyer for the parents continue to reiterate how close Adam is to his 18th birthday. In legal terms, if someone is underaged, he is underaged. There's no debate. Whether he understands the conditions and chooses to refuse or not is superseded by his parents' decision, who are at this point considered his legal guardian. What the hospital would be fighting for, then, would be whether the parents' decision demonstrates any competence in being the legal guardian. In this case, their decision is essentially murder, barring the chance that the proposed cancer therapy may not cure Adam. Nevertheless, to make a choice knowing the lessened chance of survival is the "murder" option between the two. It would be a guardianship case, not quite a life-or-death direct decision kind of case.
Therefore, I agree with the final judgement in overriding the parents and their church, to give the child a chance to live to the legal capacity that will allow him to make his own decisions. I enjoyed the exchange Fiona had with Adam, where Adam demonstrated exactly the rigidity in thinking that endangers those relying heavily on faith, and Fiona demonstrating the mental flexibility to understand and respect religious freedom. I also loved how Fiona conducts herself, in a mild, sophisticated manner. Furthermore, the pacing and atmosphere built in the film are very enjoyable.
Now I am versed, but possess no formal education in law, so I can't comment on how the procedures in the courtroom were, whether the judge has the discretion to choose what she wants to do. Someone else will be more competent in that regard.
Nevertheless, I'd like to explore the medical perspective in dealing with such a dilemma, taking into account the current day medical consensus.
Doctors respect patient autonomy, that if there's a guarantee that the patient understood their conditions, the medical procedure proposed, the consequence of refusing treatment (in this case, highly likely death), and has the mental capacity to comprehend and reason their way to their decision, then as doctors we really wouldn't have any qualms about their decision.
And then there's the beneficence perspective. As doctors, educated with the current medical practise and mostly understands the medical consequences of people's decisions better than themselves, foreseeing the undesirable medical outcomes due not to our limitations in technology, but due to a personal choice, gives an unsatisfactory feeling almost as if we have failed to help them. Personally, I accept those personal choices of the patient, given the conditions mentioned above.
In the courtroom exchange, the lawyer for the parents brings up legitimate risks of transfusion. However, her citation was the WHO, which oversees statistics over the globe, which includes those of developing countries with less stringent testing standards for their blood, potential contaminations in the process of extracting, storage, and quality control of their blood product. Assuming the plot takes place in the UK, at the setting of the film still one of the highest quality healthcare any nation can provide, the more dangerous complications of transfusion are almost nonexistent. Even if they do occur, almost all the mentioned conditions (save for hepatitis C, CJD) are treatable, albeit more difficult in a leukaemic patient.
In this case, the leukaemic boy will almost surely die without treatment. His inability to generate any blood cell is the highest of emergencies for it is an imminent danger towards death. Which is irreversible, untreatable as far as we are aware. Under
From a religious perspective. They mentioned that blood contains one's soul, that transfusion is pollution. This view seemed illogic, since the blood bank, in their logic, represents the effort of all those people who willingly sacrificed parts of their own life, in hopes that in times like Adam's, their souls can help resuscitate someone in need. This sounds a lot nobler than what seems to be Mr Henry the husband's perception. His (and by extension, his church's) view that this somehow pollutes the recipient seems to take another person's kind soul, and crushes it.
It is also seen that the Elders the husband mentioned are giving him guidances of the church, guiding his choice, but why should some remote person who does not represent the interest of the child be placed in a position of such enormous influence. While religious persons like to consider their mentors in higher positions within the church holds more power and better represent god, they are ultimately still human, and by interpreting the texts they derived their own, "contaminated" versions of gods teaching. It is unreliable, especially in such a high stake situation. Mr Henry the husband also mentions that science like religion teaching is not always understood at the time. His following strong stance on homosexuality, masturbation, etc. seems extraordinary in that he is cherrypicking what he decides to be open to interpretation, and what is irrefutable truth in his view, without complementing any justification. This embodies a primary issue with religions. When practised by those without efforts in challenging the texts against empirical evidence in life, it becomes a convenient mental crutch. Whenever they're challenged by phenomena in life that goes contrary to their belief or faces with high-stake decisions, they always have the "god says so" and "god works in mysterious ways" shields to fall back on, and thus ends their own critical thinking and openmindedness. In effect, their lives become simpler, since they are no longer in the driver seat for their own lives. They shift responsibilities for god to decide, and at the same time killed their free will.
It is also peculiar that the lawyer for the parents continue to reiterate how close Adam is to his 18th birthday. In legal terms, if someone is underaged, he is underaged. There's no debate. Whether he understands the conditions and chooses to refuse or not is superseded by his parents' decision, who are at this point considered his legal guardian. What the hospital would be fighting for, then, would be whether the parents' decision demonstrates any competence in being the legal guardian. In this case, their decision is essentially murder, barring the chance that the proposed cancer therapy may not cure Adam. Nevertheless, to make a choice knowing the lessened chance of survival is the "murder" option between the two. It would be a guardianship case, not quite a life-or-death direct decision kind of case.
Therefore, I agree with the final judgement in overriding the parents and their church, to give the child a chance to live to the legal capacity that will allow him to make his own decisions. I enjoyed the exchange Fiona had with Adam, where Adam demonstrated exactly the rigidity in thinking that endangers those relying heavily on faith, and Fiona demonstrating the mental flexibility to understand and respect religious freedom. I also loved how Fiona conducts herself, in a mild, sophisticated manner. Furthermore, the pacing and atmosphere built in the film are very enjoyable.
Now I am versed, but possess no formal education in law, so I can't comment on how the procedures in the courtroom were, whether the judge has the discretion to choose what she wants to do. Someone else will be more competent in that regard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)