I contend that religion and
science are two distinct and unique domains, and thus qualitatively different.
It follows that they have their own distinctive criteria, which are rightly
hegemonic in their respective domain. In other words, the criteria of religion
should not be extended onto the domain of natural science, especially if in
doing so the native criteria of science are eclipsed or overridden. Likewise,
the criteria of science should not be superimposed into the domain of religion,
especially if at the expense of the sui generis criteria of religion. The film,
The Children Act (2017),
demonstrates the problems entailed in imposing religious criteria onto medical
science. An interesting question from having seen the film is whether any such
hypertrophy of one domain’s criteria onto another domain inevitably incurs a
narrowing of perspective and a corresponding warping of judgment.
The film’s narrative centers
around Fiona Maye, a judge in Britain, and Adam Henry, a 17-year-old who has leukemia.
From the standpoint of medical ethics and religion, the first half of the film
is salient, whereas the second half centers around Adam’s infatuation for Fiona
and her efforts to distance herself from him. The infatuation is likely a
result of the fact that he has lost his religious grounding due to Judge Maye’s
order that him be given a blood transfusion in violation of the dogma of the
Jehovah Witness sect of Christianity. It is precisely that transfusion that is
the legal/moral/religious issue that is presented in the film. If as I contend
the medium of film is an excellent means of bringing to people matters of
ethics and theology (and philosophy generally), then delving into the complex
issue before the court in the film is warranted.
Adam’s parents have asked the
court to stop the hospital from giving Adam a potentially life-saving blood-infusion,
without which he would die (as the film’s end demonstrates). The parents’
lawyer presents the theological position of Jehovah’s Witnesses against blood
transfusions. Genesis, Leviticus, and even Acts are cited as scriptural support,
but no passages are cited before the court. The theological potential of the
film would be strengthened were even a bit of exegesis presented to the judge
(or she could be shown studying the matter at home, especially as her husband
is away having an affair). The lawyer for the hospital points out in court that
blood transfusions did not exist in ancient times, so we can infer that the relevant
scriptural passages are at best indirect, being on blood itself as
necessary for life. The hospital lawyer points out that if blood is tantamount
to life itself, then the sect should be heartily in favor of blood transfusions
to continue life.
Even though no reference to
blood transfusion itself is in the Bible, the Jehovah Witness religious organization
denounces the medical treatment as if God prohibits it. In court, Adam’s father
says that he knows this, but in matters of religious, belief, and thus
faith, rather than knowledge sans doubt applies. The notion that blood
is or carries a person’s soul, which is implied in the sect’s position,
conflates the material and spiritual, and in terms of domains, the biological
and the religious. Conflating different domains can indeed lead to such astonishing
claims that a person’s soul is in one’s blood. Typically, people dismiss such a
claim without realizing that the underlying problem is a category mistake in
terms of conflating two different domains or hyperextending one onto another.
Even were scripture to proscribe
blood transfusions in particular and explicitly, rather than by an assumed
inference from a passage on blood, such a prohibition would be of minor
importance given the leitmotif of the gospels. In them, Jesus does not mention
transfusions of blood; nor does he mention abortion or gay marriage, yet that
hasn’t stopped some Christians from treating such ethical issues as
foremost and as religious in nature. This is not to say that
transfusions, abortions, and gay people marrying are ethical or unethical.
Instead, my point is that from a religious standpoint generally and from the perspective
of the New Testament, those issues are not particularly salient. Before the
judge’s ruling, Adam is worried that his Church would disenfranchise him were
he to get an infusion even if against his will! Even just to distance a member
on the basis of an ethical issue that carries little or no distinctly religious
importance, especially given the salient feature in the gospels of compassion
where it is least convenient (i.e., to detractors, outsiders, and even enemies),
incurs a bias in terms of perspective and judgment. Treating a minor factor as though
everything hinges on it is to judge erroneously. To violate the theological
principle of caritas seu benevolentia universalis (love as universal
benevolence) under the rubric of Christianity and especially on a theologically
minor issue incurs hypocrisy. The sick are to be cared for—this is very evident
from the gospels. Magnifying some passages on blood (rather than more
specifically on transfusions as if that practice were proscribed) such that the
prohibition eclipses the main theological thrust of the gospels demonstrates a
lack of good judgment (and common sense).
Because the transfusion would likely
forestall Adam’s eventual death from the cancer means that, as Judge Maye declares
from the bench, the Jehovah’s Witness organization was acting against rather
than in line with Adam’s welfare. Something had gone very wrong in the governance
of that organization. Adam’s welfare includes the happiness that continuing to
live can make possible; a religious institution that is in favor of precluding
a person’s future is likely making a category mistake underneath—in this case, extending
religious criteria onto medical science at the expense of that domain’s own
criteria.
As Fiona realizes when she
visits Adam in hospital before her verdict, he is a lively, precious young man
full of a lively spirit, which is shown in his sarcastic grin even more than in
his blood. A person’s soul—isn’t it through a person’s eyes anyway? A person’s entire
being is the “form” of one’s soul, as evinced especially in tone of voice
and facial expressions as well as the language that one uses. The role of blood
is biological, and thus of science, in human life, whereas the spiritual
transcends the limits of human thought, perception, and emotion. The religious
domain can thus be understood to be distinct from that of natural science.
