Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 August 2018

Bioethics film analysis: The Island




(Warning: spoilers follow. Consider watching the movie first. Even the trailers are spoilers. I personally enjoyed the movie very much and wouldn’t have enjoyed it as much if I already knew what will happen next.)

Summary

It is about clones isolated in a compound, tricked into thinking that the outside world is contaminated. Their only hope was to get picked by the lotto to go to "The Island" (they were tricked into thinking it's a paradise-like place). After Lincoln Six Echo (one of the clones) learns the compound inhabitants are clones used for organ harvesting as well as surrogate mothers for wealthy people in the outside world (when one gets "picked" to go to the Island, that is when their sponsors need to "access their insurance policy"), he attempts to escape with his best friend Jordan Two Delta and expose the illegal cloning movement.

Pay attention to what you see, feel, hear.

How does the director use framing, lighting, music, pace, scene-setting and the like?

The opening was lacking in colour, with white smoky cloud and water that was black with white reflection on the left and land was on the right. The music began with the suspense type of repetitive tone, then turned into a creepy medieval choir type of singing. A beautiful blonde with white fabric floating and covering her from time to time came into scene and we see a boat. The camera started approaching an island.  The woman seemed relaxed but suddenly the man got pulled into the water and some very strange scenes started flashing up, like a strange man talking about “the island” and what seemed like memory fragments. In the water, the man was full of fear while the blonde woman wasn’t. The coloured remained a black and white and blue type of colour as we realised that all these strange things were the nightmare of the main character, Lincoln Six Echo. I think the name is extremely strange.

Then we are introduced to a very strange type of institutional communal environment where everyone was dressed in the same type of white uniform with a lack of freedom, eg. food choices. There were “brainwashing” slogans, eg. “A healthy person is a happy person.” These people were constantly being monitored and there was intervention when someone displayed even mildly disruptive emotions or got a bit intimate with someone of the opposite gender.

As soon Jordan Two Delta entered the scene, it was clear that she was the woman on the boat, and the mutual attraction between Lincoln and Jordan was clear.

We are also introduced to a Dr Merrick, who seemed to be overseeing everything as he knew about Lincoln’s nightmares and intimacy with Jordan, and Dr Merrick was the strange man in Lincoln’s nightmare right at the opening. In this conversation, we can see that Lincoln asking many questions. Then Dr Merrick started running some studies on Lincoln’s brain, which I think is unusual as there doesn’t seem to be any form of informed consent for it.

I feel very puzzled seeing how the people were helping with some sort of science laboratory and there was a “newcomer” who was very baby-like despite having an adult body and that there was a contamination of some sort where the people had to be decontaminated from when they first came.

The pace of the movie became very fast as soon as Lincoln discovered a moth in the off-limits power facility of his friend, technician James McCord. All the answers became immediately obvious: the people were probably clones and they were also the ones unknowingly made to labour for the laboratory to produce more clones. The conversation between Lincoln and Jordan about the moth seemed like the conversation between two children. We see that Lincoln is very smart, despite his child-likeness. Soon we know that the institution was a surrogate mother and organ harvesting facility for the rich and famous, and these institutionalised people were clones. These things were done in extremely brutal fashions, with the workers getting entertainment out of watching the clones run away in fear etc. Meanwhile the sponsors didn’t know that their clones were fully alive people who gets killed when they access “their insurance policy.” And we learn that Jordan’s sponsor was in trouble and Lincoln and Jordan had to escape to stay alive.

Lincoln and Jordan encountered culture shock as they explored the world outside the institution, and are highly anxious as they learn more about what is happening. There was even an “Adam and Eve” like scene when the couple encountered the first snake they met in their lives.

The scene changed to that of the city when the couple tried to find their sponsors. It was clear that Lincoln’s sponsor Tom was very different from Lincoln in that Tom was not a nice person at all. Tom was shorter than Lincoln, probably because Lincoln had the best nutrition in his controlled environment and had been free from temptations that lead him to behaviours harmful for his health both physically and mentally. Tom seemed jealous of Lincoln as he observed the intimate relationship between Lincoln and Jordan.

The shooting of Tom by Albert Laurent, the person hired by Dr Merrick to “sort things out” was in slow motion. Lincoln’s placement of the clone’s wristband onto Tom happened so quickly that it was easy to miss what happened (I saw a hand doing something but it didn’t occur to me that it was the clone wristband). Nevertheless, it soon became clear that Lincoln survived and Tom had been killed accidentally.

When the scientists try to get rid of the clones, it looked as brutal as a mass genocide.

In the final fighting scene, Lincoln exclaimed in protest, “my name is Lincoln” when Dr Merrick called him “Six Echo”.

When all the clones were released from the institute, it looked like a mass exodus of joy as they ran out to the Arizona desert. Laurent is one of African ethnicity, so it reminded me of the theme of “freedom from slavery” as he walked alongside the excited clones.

There was the scene of Lincoln and Jordan on the boat again, which reminds me of the opening of the movie. 

What mood does that generate?

There’s plenty of suspense, fear and anxiety.

How does that impact what you see and head and how you process it?

The suspense in the beginning makes me very curious, because the institution is so strange. The characters don’t realise they are in the strange environment but we as audiences know there is something very off-putting.

The movie quickly picks up pace when Lincoln discovered the insect. I like the fast pace because it keeps me interested and worried about the main characters getting caught by the enemies. However, this movie may be a bit too fast, and there is a lack of depth in the characters.

Is there a character that carries the ‘voice' of the movie, or from whose perspective and experience (and moral point of view) events are told?

Although there isn’t anyone narrating this movie, it is clear that we are viewing it from the perspective and experience of Lincoln.

Is there a specific dilemma explored in this movie? How would you describe it?

One lie will lead to more lies to cover it up, until things get out of hand. If what we created through our technology end up displaying human characteristics (be it genetical engineering or even artificial intelligence showing signs of conscious awareness), and the situation got out of hand because there are too many of them, what do we do? Clearly we can’t try to kill them like that science institute did! Where do we place them? Can they ever be integrated into society?

Are there social values explored or evident in it?

Yes.

What are they?

Equality vs power : The rich, famous, powerful people are the ones that can access this expensive cloning technology, so there is lack of equality. If there’s already lack of equality then forget equity: the most weak and vulnerable are the least likely people to access the help they need.

Human rights: The clones are treated like products/livestock, not humans. They are all destined to be slaughtered one day (even if the “insurance holder” end up not needing to utilise their clone, the institution will probably kill the clone rather than spend money keeping the unnecessary clone alive). However, they display all the characteristics that define a human.

Autonomy and informed consent: Informed consent is required before an autonomous decision can be made. The consumers of this technology cannot give informed consent because they don’t even know their clones are alive.

Money: Dr Merrick’s desire for money is so strong that he’s willing to lie to the consumers, and go to the extreme of creating clones who are fully human and slaughter them like animals for the consumers.

Knowledge: Dr Merrick is obviously trying to up his game. He monitors the clones like lab animals. There are different generations of the clones. The genes of the clones seems to be modified in some way so that instead of being babies, they came to the world with adult bodies. It also seems like if a certain “model” of clones come up with an “undesired” trait, eg. the “Echo” clones’ ability to question, the scientists destroy them (“recalls them”) and make another “model” which doesn’t do that.

How prevalent are they in your social context?

Very prevalent.

How do they relate to the general values of your community?

Money: Doing unethical things for financial gains.

Power: The less powerful people works under the more powerful people. It is not uncommon for powerful people to oppress the less powerful. Sometimes we don’t even realise we are the oppressors. For example, some of the products we buy are made by workers working under slave-like conditions in developing countries.

What virtues or vices are exemplified in it?

Virtues: love, courage, justice.

Vices: iniquity, wickedness, corruption, jealousy.

How would you describe them?

Love: Caring about someone enough to taking risks to help that person even if there is no personal gain from doing so.

Courage: To be willing to face dangers.

Justice: Justice for the oppressed.

Iniquity: Why are some humans not treated like humans?

Wickedness: Getting entertainment out of inflicting pain upon others.

Corruption: Dishonesty or criminal activity by an organisation entrusted with a position of authority.

Jealousy: Unhappiness to see someone else having something which you don’t have.

How are they portrayed?

Love: Between Lincoln and Jordan. Also Lincoln’s friendship with McCord which resulted in McCord getting killed for helping Lincoln and Jordan.

Courage and justice: Lincoln and Jordan’s willingness to risk their lives to return to the institution to free other clones. Laurent choosing to follow his own morality and side with the clones.

Iniquity: The clones not being treated as humans.

Wickedness: The workers getting entertained watching the clones getting killed.

Corruption: The science institute in the movie.

Jealousy: Tom’s jealousy of Lincoln and Jordan’s loving relationship, probably because he has never had such a relationship before.

How are they evaluated?

The virtues ultimately won over the vices at the end of the movie.

Is there an overarching approach to ethics (theory and/or practice) evident in the movie?

Sanctity of life.

How would you describe it?

Everyone is fighting for their right to live in this movie. Paradoxically, some people’s fight for survival infringes with another person’s right to live, eg. Sponsors having clones made to survive accidents etc. But then this will involve killing the clones.

How prevalent is it in your social context?

Prevalent. Can be seen in issues to do with organ transplants vs organ trafficking, embryos produced by IVF technology, etc.

To what extent does it line up and/or conflict with your understanding of Christian ethics?

The theme of love and sacrifice in this movie line up.

The theme of oppression, iniquity, wickedness, and corruption conflict.

In what ways, if any, have social values influenced the development and/or use of technology in this movie?

The desire for money has led to the development of this institute. The people who developed it knew there is a market out there, with the consumers being rich and powerful people.

In what ways, if any, has the development and/or use of technology influenced social values in this movie?

This technology led to an increase in vices as leaders of the institute cover one lie with more lies and get enjoyment out of watching the clones suffer.

Does the movie raise new questions for you? What are they?

How far will people go in their fight to beat death? Morally? Research wise?

Did it generate new insights? What are they?

What is happening in the movie is just an exaggerated illustration of what is happening in the real world.


Reflection after reading the other students’ movie responses

“Never Let me Go” and “Me Before You” were the films which the other students watched.
(Warning: spoilers follow. Consider watching the movies first before reading on. I didn’t have the time to watch these movies because I had too many assignments due at Morling.)

What things did both/all the movies raise? In other words, what are the common themes?

I read the Wikipedia synopsis and trailer for “Never Let Me Go” and “Me Before You,” but didn’t watch them. I think the common theme is sanctity of life.

What was specific to your movie?

My movie is different from the other two in that it is an action movie with people really fighting for their right to be alive, and ends on a more hopeful note. The other two seem very depressive and involve people either getting killed (I don’t know what brainwashing they did in Hailsham, but I thought it was strange why the characters didn’t just ran away?), or choosing to die (euthanasia in “Me Before You”… but I find it paradoxical that the one who is choosing to die wrote a note to another saying “just live”).

How do these movies inform your understanding of the cultural context/s of bioethical issues and the debates surrounding them?

The cultural contexts do affect the bioethical issues: for example, in collectivist cultures, there can be a lack of boundary between people, and parents think their children are extensions of themselves etc.

Although the movies are all Western movies, the authors/makers of the movies come from different backgrounds, and I think the different cultural backgrounds of these authors/makers in turn impact on how they picture the bioethics of their stories. So I am taking the approach of looking more deeply into the background of the authors/makers.

Kazuo Ishiguro, the author of the novel “Never Let Me Go,” is a Japanese who grew up in the UK. The Japanese culture is very polite and hierarchical. The Japanese culture is widely known to be a repressive culture: people don’t tend to speak their true thoughts openly. Although the characters in the novel tried to find ways to survive (eg. Trying to demonstrate a love relationship etc), there weren’t clones working with other clones to put up a fight. In fact, they are just doing their individual things and hurting each other deeply.

Jojo Moyes, the author of the novel “Me Before You,” is British. As a high achieving woman in the more individualistic Western World, her mind might be more open to the thought of the individual rights and control over their own lives, including that of euthanasia. Ie. Something along the lines of “ live your life to the fullest (which can mean very different things for different people, depending on what their values are), and you have the right to end it when it no longer allows you to do so”…?

Michael Bay, the director, co-producer and co-writer of the Island (unfortunately there isn’t much on the internet about the other co-writer, Caspian Tredwell-Owen), has a very interesting background. He was born in Los Angeles. He was raised by adoptive parents Harriet, a bookstore owner/child psychiatrist, and Jim, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Furthermore, he was raised Jewish. He is well known for directing and producing big-budget, high-concept action films. I don’t know if it is because of his Jewish background, I noticed several scenes with Biblical symbolisms: the Adam and Eve like scene with the snake, and the exodus out into the desert similar to Moses leading the people out of Egypt in Exodus.  And victory at the end could only happen because people were helping each other: it couldn’t have been achieved if done by one single person.

How does this discussion inform your reflections on the dilemmas, policy issues, virtues/vices related to the movie, and those in society?

Sanctity of life: People will all eventually die one day. The movies about the clones depict how some people fight death to the extent of artificially producing life with the sole purpose of destroying it. Creating life and ending life should be in God’s hands, why are human so keen to usurp this authority? Although the clones wouldn’t have existed in the first place if there weren’t people needing to utilise the clones, this doesn’t justify the torture and killing of the clones once they are created, treating as if they don’t have souls, because they do! Just like IVF babies are “made” and not “begotten”, and these lives wouldn’t have existed via the “natural method”, but they are definitely human and someone wanted them in this world (or else why would their parents/parent want to go to such a painstaking task?). Louise Brown, the world’s first IVF baby, is only 40 years old now, but I already know so many people in my age group or slightly younger, who were born by IVF, and some of my friends are having babies by IVF! This technique got utilised so quickly! There may still be some unseen effects from the IVF procedure, because so little time has passed, that might not be evident until 100 years’ time (eg. Further loss to the stability of the human DNA/worsening quality of the DNA).

Does it raise matters for further reflection, or challenge your prior thinking? How?

I feel ambivalent about IVF/ART. I am at the age where I should either freeze my eggs now if I want to go down that path, or don’t bother, because once I get past 35, my egg quality will not be worthwhile freezing. After watching these films, I feel sure that I won’t be utilising the egg freezing technology, and will try to conceive by natural methods when I get married, even though I am already in the “advanced maternal age” group now (defined as 35 years old or above). 



Bioethics film analysis: In Vitro



In Vitro film link:
(spoilers follow, so consider watching this 18 minute film first before reading on)

Initial impressions:

“Guard your DNA, Protect and survive.”
The scientist did what she did out of desperation: Can’t get funding for her research. Rejection when she tried to get her works published.
Fertility treatment: if we can reprogram stem cells to fight cancer, then we can reprogram stem cells into egg or sperm cells.
The child produced by the scientist from fertilisation of her egg by her own stem cells died at age 35: her body was taken away for further human experimentation.
The scientist’s regret: You can’t undo what you’ve done. If you’re going to mess with the fundamentals, you’d better make sure you’re standing on solid grounds.

The first question that came up for me was, “Would the woman scientist be able to obtain ethics committee approval to do what she did?” There are some pretty clear guidelines out there and I don’t think she can get approval.

The second question was, “Is the technical method (turning embryonic stem cells into gametes) described in the film too sci-fi, or has there already been experimentation in this area?”
Which led me to this piece of research literature (and many other research articles if you google “stem cell change into gamete.”)
Several reports have shown that mouse embryonic stem (ES)-cells can differentiate into sperm (Toyooka et al., 2003; Geijsen et al., 2004) and ova (Hubner et al., 2003) and that human ES cells can also differentiate into germ cells in culture (Clark et al., 2004; Lacham-Kaplan et al., 2005). 
So, if this area is further researched, there is likely to be further development, and not that sci-fi at all!

Also, I noticed that in many bioethics film in popular culture, they attempt to make things look very futuristic, by having these transparent technological devices or voice command controlled things that seem different from the current technology. It seems quite stereotypical in those films. Technology is improving rapidly but there are still many things that are pretty similar to the way it was ten years ago, eg. laptops are still very common and look quite similar, even though it may be lighter now and run faster, TVs are still around, iPhone don’t look too different even though there have been new models every year, etc.

Pay attention to what you see, feel, hear.

How does the director use framing, lighting, music, pace, scene-setting and the like?

Opening:
In the opening, the first thing I heard was creepy music that sounded corrugated and insect-like. The colour was a gloomy dark blue to black. The sperms looked insect-like too, and seemed alive. The water drops resembled rain or tear-drops, and seemed to parallel with the shape of the sperms. The sperms jumped very suddenly, like the corrugated music. It was clear right from the beginning that this film has something to do with reproductive technology, because of the presence of the sperms.

Scene1:
The music changed to a higher pitch as the first human character appeared. This is a teenage or university aged girl who seemed to be running for her life, with the narrator saying “you can run, but you can’t hide” (The background music is very loud and the voice of the characters are soft in comparison. Is it meant to be that way, or is there something wrong with my computer?). We were given the precise date and time soon after the girl appears. Initially it was in a building, then the girl ran out to the streets of what looks like an urban area. I think the opening pace was slow even though the girl was running, because the action was very repetitive. It was easy for me to lose interest.

Scene2:
After the girl scene was a very long black screen, which made me even more bored. Then scenery changed significantly, to that of nature/wilderness, and we see a person from very far away walking slowly towards the camera. The music changed to a very slow sleepy classical type of music, which made me even more bored. There were the seagulls, then as the person walks closer, that’s when I worked out she’s a blonde middle aged woman.

Scene3:
Then the scene shifts indoors to a house with many glass windows and a sick looking woman in oxygen mask listening to music being playing by one of those very ancient machines (record players) from the mid-1900s? Amidst the music came a long beep which is the classical note people play to represent a cardiac arrest. Very soon after the beep, the blonde woman enters the house. The blonde woman didn’t realise what happened and kept talking to Sophia as usual, but there was no reply. I think it’s unusual she didn’t become immediately alarmed after there was no reply to so many of her sentences, but only realised there was something wrong when she saw Sophia (unless Sophia usually don’t answer her in their usual conversation because either she is already too weak from her illness, or there is something off with the relationship between these two people). The blonde woman clearly appeared very sad when she realised Sophia was dead, but she didn’t seem surprised, so I think she was expecting her to die. They filmed from various angles, both from the side of the blonde woman and Sophia.

Scene4:
We see a very greyish and bluish scene of the MIT (UK) Library, a rectangular institution. The girl and a man comes out, separated paths, and the girl picks up the phone, which is a transparent device that looks different from the cell phone today. We soon find out her name is Lily. Lily’s face drooped a bit and slowed down the pace of her walking when the blonde woman told her that her mother passed away. The blonde woman also admits that she knew it was going to happen, but the girl stops walking and said she wasn’t expecting it to happen that quickly. The girl became very agitated and angry when the blonde woman revealed that her mother’s body had already been taken away so she couldn’t see her. She blamed the blonde woman for everything and hung up. The woman washed her face and tried calling again, couldn’t get her, tried to call Samsara clinic then changed her mind.

Scene5:
This is where all the answers start unravelling and the film picks up pace and became more interesting to watch. We see a photo of Sophia and Lily, so now we know how Sophia looked when she was alive and relatively healthy, which was very different from her sick dehumanised appearance. The blonde woman starts scrolling through her transparent computer device and that was when we got more clues to the background of this whole thing, and can deduct that this woman was a scientist of some sort. This scene keeps flicking back and forth between the blonde woman and Lily, with Lily going to the Samsara clinic possibly wanting to be with Sophia (interestingly, I noticed at this point that Samsara sounds like a male and female name combined into one, but when I looked it up, it is an Indian word for “wandering”, which reminds me of “the Fall”). In that institution, Lily received the message and as she started listening to the blonde woman narrating the background of all this, and she got out of the institution. The blonde woman described how in 2012 she faced the challenges many researchers face, which is getting funding for their research, so she used her own stem cells to create sperm cells (which looked like the scary sperm cells we saw in the opening, so the opening was a foreshadowing) and fertilise her own egg, which created Sophia. That step was irreversible: “nothing was ever the same again.” This is when see that her name is Rachel. Naïve, hot-headed and brightness added together led to a “reaction”, and they banned the procedure. Sophia was under constant monitoring and treated like a lab animal rather than a human. Then they lifted the ban when they thought she grew up healthily, and developed nations became a huge market for this procedure because there are many women wanting to conceive without a man. Then Sophia died at 35y.o., which instilled a great fear in the consumers so the researchers took her body to do more research. They will turn their attention to Lily, which is why she needed to escape. The whole tone was very nervous, and we are put into more suspense when we see Lily still being undecided, while Rachel, whom we now know is her grandmother, takes a ride in a vehicle (train?) in the tunnel that seem to last forever. Then we see Lily running, like the first scene, as Rachel waits anxiously for her, which is more relieving to see because at least she decided to escape. The news broadcast announces to the world about the news of Sophia dying from leukaemia. The film closes with the warning, “If you’re going to mess with the fundamentals, you’d better make sure you’re standing on solid grounds”.

What mood does that generate?

Suspense, fear, gloom, especially in the opening.

How does that impact what you see and head and how you process it?

Initially it was so gloomy and slow and repetitive that I lost interest. It was only when the scientist started explaining everything that I became interested.

Is there a character that carries the ‘voice' of the movie, or from whose perspective and experience (and moral point of view) events are told?

The scientist was the ‘voice’ of the movie.

Is there a specific dilemma explored in this movie? How would you describe it?

The ethics of human experimentation: experimenting on oneself as the scientist did, then treating the offspring of the scientist like a lab animal rather than a human. Also, we know that consanguineous marriages tend to have a higher rate of producing genetic defects due to closely related genes: has it occurred in the scientist’s mind that if she actually used her own cells to fertilise her egg, there may be an even greater chance of genetic defect?

A new technology that was prematurely made available when there was still lack of data about whether long-term complications can happen.

Personal interest overriding the good of the society: The scientist’s personal ambition made her tamper with the fundamentals. Money-making: technology released prematurely, because it had a market.

Are there social values explored or evident in it?

Yes.

What are they?

Human rights: The rights of Sophia were clearly infringed as she was monitored not allowed to live a normal life. After she passes away, the rights of Lily to see Sophia for one last time was infringed and Lily will likely get monitored the way Sophia did.

Autonomy and informed consent: Informed consent is required before an autonomous decision can be made. The consumers of this technology cannot make informed consent because there isn’t enough known about this technology yet.

Knowledge: The scientist’s desire for knowledge led her to do something which might have been illegal (as I don’t think what the scientist did can get past the ethics committee). The desire for knowledge seems to override human rights as Sophia was being studied like animals.

Competition: The scientist had to compete with other researchers for funding, and she did this “irreversible step” in an attempt to beat her competitors.

Equality: The developed nations are the people who accessed the technology in the film. So it seems like the more affluent people are the ones that can access this.

How prevalent are they in your social context?

They are very prevalent issues in our society. Furthermore, I wonder whether people can ever truly receive informed consent.

How do they relate to the general values of your community?

People are constantly trying to stand up for their rights, especially in developed nations. There are 12 years of compulsory education so people have some knowledge, which helps the society function better. People are always competing, and the motivating factor for that varies widely.  Equality doesn’t seem to happen: the more affluent get access to better things, which makes people even more competitive because they realise this point.

What virtues or vices are exemplified in it?

Love.

How would you describe them?

Love between mothers and daughters.

How are they portrayed?

The scientist’s sadness when she realised Sophia passed away. The scientist’s immediate concern for Lily’s wellbeing. Lily’s desire to see Sophia. Sophia conceiving Lily naturally might mean she had a romantic relationship with a man? Photo of Sophia and Lily together smiling. The scientist hugging Lily when Lily arrives.

How are they evaluated?

The love is obviously great because when the scientist narrates the whole background, it is obvious she changed from a person who was all about knowledge and competition to one that became concerned for the wellbeing of her genetic offspring, and this love overrode the priorities of her younger days as she became increasingly regretful about what she did.

Is there an overarching approach to ethics (theory and/or practice) evident in the movie?

Don’t mess with the fundamentals, ie. human genetic make-up?

How would you describe it?

There’s repeated warnings in this film, like “guard your DNA, protect and survive.” And how the scientist’s mistake cannot be reversed, and “nothing was ever the same again.”

How prevalent is it in your social context?

ART/IVF is already heading towards that direction. The world’s first IVF baby is only 40 years old now, so we don’t really know the long term consequences yet. Yet there are already so many people being born by IVF in developed nations.

To what extent does it line up and/or conflict with your understanding of Christian ethics?

Humans should not play God. I think manipulating the human genome excessively is playing God. It might even lead to consequences like significantly reduced human lifespan etc.

The biblical command for a man and a woman to come together in one flesh to procreate and multiply all over the earth is not being followed in IVF.

In what ways, if any, have social values influenced the development and/or use of technology in this movie?

Knowledge and competition: In developed nations, many people are delaying their childbearing because they may view their education and career as a more important priority than parenthood. It becomes increasingly difficult to conceive naturally as one grows older. So there is a strong market out there for ART/IVF.

In what ways, if any, has the development and/or use of technology influenced social values in this movie?

The technology impacts on human rights, autonomy and informed consent. The “experimental” offspring have no choice over the fact that she was born by unnatural methods. She became an experimental subject with no human dignity as potential consumers fear that she may have some genetic defect. As soon as she was “cleared”, a huge market utilised this technology. However, this market was unable to make an informed consent because there wasn’t enough known about the consequences yet.

Does the movie raise new questions for you? What are they?

If somebody accesses IVF technology, will their genetic materials be retained by some research facility and get experimented on?

Did it generate new insights? What are they?

It can take several generations to realise the full impact of the decisions made by previous generations, yet the world constantly has to make these types of decisions.


Tuesday, 22 March 2016

Anne Rice: The Young Messiah

https://youtu.be/5EynFdirgmY
In theology class today, we had a discussion about Anne Rice for a few minutes. The new film, “The Young Messiah”, is based on her book, “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt”! She is probably the most well known for her book, “Interview with the Vampire” and initiated the whole “theology of the undead” vampire theology movement!
Her background is rather interesting as seen from Wikipedia. She was raised in an observant Catholic family, but became an agnostic as a young adult. Apparently that had to do with the lack of good pastoral care when her daughter passed away from leukaemia in 1972. In the mid-2000s, following a publicized return to Catholicism, Rice published the novels Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana, fictionalized accounts of certain incidents in the life of Jesus.
On July 28, 2010, Rice publicly announced her disdain for the current state of Christianity on her Facebook page, stating, "Today I quit being a Christian.... I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else." Shortly thereafter, she clarified her statement: "My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become."