Plot Synopsis:
Two alien parents have brought their boy, Shon, to Dr. Franklin for a second opinion regarding Shon's rapidly worsening respiratory condition. Dr. Franklin believes that he can cure Shon, but the treatment will require surgery, something that the parents' religion absolutely does not permit. "Food animals are punctured," insist the parents; their religion teaches that the soul resides within the skin and will escape if the skin is opened. Dr. Franklin suggests an alternate, non-invasive treatment (which, his assistant points out, is unlikely to be effective) to buy time for the parents to reconsider.
In the meantime, Dr. Franklin goes to Sinclair and asks that the commander intervene. Sinclair is reluctant, however - he believes that overriding the parents' authority on this matter will set a dangerous precedent. Dr. Franklin points out that the precedent was already set when Sinclair ordered Kosh's encounter suit to be opened in the pilot, but Sinclair is not swayed. Dr. Franklin once again returns to the parents and begs them to approve the surgery. The parents again refuse, and a frustrated Dr. Franklin, knowing that Shon will die if he does not undergo surgery, decides to file a formal request asking that the parents be stripped of their decision-making power.
The parents seek out the assistance of each of the four more powerful ambassadors in turn, but each ambassador has a different reason to avoid getting involved. Sinclair, meanwhile, visits Shon, asking the boy what he wishes to do. Shon tells Sinclair that he does not want to die, but he does not want the surgery either; he accepts his parents' beliefs on the matter. A conflicted Sinclair tells Dr. Franklin that he cannot agree to his formal request; while a precedent was set with Kosh, Sinclair states, he does not want to further endanger Babylon 5's neutrality.
Angry, Dr. Franklin decides to violate his orders and perform the surgery anyway. After the procedure, Shon seems well -- but when his parents arrive and realize what Dr. Franklin has done, they angrily shun Shon as if he is a demon. When Sinclair hears what has happened, he is livid. Sinclair doesn't have much time to confront Dr. Franklin regarding his decision, however, as their conversation is interrupted by a call from the Med Lab: Shon's parents have returned, calm, and are asking to be allowed to take the boy. The parents tell Dr. Franklin that they have brought a "traveling robe" for Shon's journey, and Dr. Franklin lets them go.
Later, however, Dr. Franklin's assistant brings up the cultural information on Shon's race, and Dr. Franklin discovers with horror what the "traveling robe" is really used for. He runs to the parents' quarters, but it is too late: the parents have killed Shon. "That was not our son," they say. "It was only an empty shell."
There is also a side plot in which Ivanova rescues a disabled Earth liner from a fleet of Raiders.
Overall: 7.3 - Since high school, I have always been fascinated with moral theology - bioethics in particular. Thus, I find this episode an interesting one to chew on.
Writing: 8.0
What I particularly like about this episode is that it avoids the Star Trek ending. Generally speaking, if this were a Star Trek episode, the heroic "rational" scientist would've swooped in and successfully convinced the parents that their beliefs were false. Obviously, that does not happen here; the parents hold fast to their religion to the shocking end. This better approximates the reality of religion's enduring power in the human - or, rather, sentient - mind.
The other thing I like about this episode is that it doesn't tell you what to think on the subject. Although I have a problem with one thing Sinclair says - something I will discuss below - the questions raised in this episode about the possible limits of parental authority over the medical care of their children (questions doctors in the real world have confronted when dealing with parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists) are left tantalizingly unanswered. When I become a teacher in bioethics (this is a long term goal of mine), I will likely use this episode to open up class discussion on informed consent versus medical beneficence.
Acting: 7.0
I was actually rather impressed with Tricia O'Neil and Stephen Lee's portrayal of the parents, and Jonathan Kaplan's turn as Shon is not bad at all. I liked Silvana Gallardo less - her first big scene with Dr. Franklin is pretty awful, actually, but she does improve as the episode proceeds. Overall, in a show in which the acting - especially the guest performances - is a perennial weak spot, this episode turns out to be relatively strong on balance.
Message: 7.0
This time around, as noted above, this episode earns points for not actually having a message either way. Believing as I do in freedom of conscience and the family's sacrosanctity, I tentatively fall on the side of the parents on this one. I do recognize that this is a very difficult principle to hold to when matters of life and death are at stake, but I really don't trust people to limit themselves to life-and-death matters once the camel has been let into the tent (as in Sinclair's metaphor). Why? Because I've already observed among the elite an enthusiasm for forcing themselves and their values upon their supposedly benighted fellow citizens in situations in which a life is not at stake (see also: the home school debate). However, I'm glad the episode didn't come out and side with me, as I don't think a conclusion on the issue should be so easily drawn.
There is one attitude expressed in this episode that is decidedly iffy, though. In one scene, Sinclair has this to say:
What makes a religion false? If any religion is right, then maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them.
I think that's a bit of wussy cultural relativism myself. In truth, religions are not wholly reconcilable with each other; sometimes, religions will teach entirely opposite beliefs - and if one thing is demonstrably true, its opposite cannot also be true.
Now, I understand where the above sentiment comes from; the "many paths to one God" idea stems from our desire to be tolerant and respectful. But I believe it is entirely possible - and far more logical - to respect someone's beliefs without accepting that said beliefs are necessarily true. Many Catholic missionaries in centuries past have certainly succeeded in this. I can recall, for example, reading of one missionary who went to China to spread the Catholic faith and spent several years living as a Mandarin in order to fully comprehend the roots of the Chinese culture before sharing with the Chinese the message of the Gospel. This missionary sought to understand what the Chinese believed so that he could connect the teachings of Christianity to things the Chinese already knew. I think this is extremely respectful - the missionary was essentially saying to the Chinese (through his actions), "I believe you have discovered things that are true - but let me tell you more." This missionary, however, did not accept the idea that the Chinese had hit upon some separate notion of truth that was equally valid. Christians in the modern age should adopt an analogous approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment