Life for Ruth

Life for Ruth(1962)

09/06/1962 (US)Drama1h 33m
6.5

Overview

John Harris finds himself ostracized and placed on trial for allowing his daughter Ruth to die. His religious beliefs forbade him to give consent for a blood transfusion that would have saved her life. Doctor Brown is determined to seek justice for what he sees as the needless death of a young girl.

James McCormick

Writer

Janet Green

Writer

Basil Dearden

Director

Where to Watch

No streaming providers found for this country.

Popularity Trend

Last 30 Days
This chart shows the popularity trend over the past 30 days.

Media

Life for Ruth (1962) Original Trailer [HD]

Life for Ruth (1962) Original Trailer [HD]

Trailer

Social

C
A review by CinemaSerf
7.0

Written on June 22, 2022

Michael Craig turns in a strong, emotional, performance in this thought provoking drama. He takes his young daughter and her friend from next door on a trip to the seaside. They get into some difficulties and though he ("Harris") manages to rescue both children, it is soon clear that his hospitalised daughter "Ruth" will need a blood transfusion if she is to survive. The doctor "Brown" (Patrick McGoohan) assumes that consent will be readily forthcoming from the father and his wife "Pat" (Janet Munro) but when he discovers that they have religious convictions that will not permit this intervention, a tragedy looms large - and is promptly delivered upon the family. The doctor seeks a prosecution as he felt the father was criminally negligent in the care of his child, and what now ensues is a delicately balanced analysis - played out in a courtroom - of the relative merits of his case and that of the doctor, and of the position the "law" might reasonably take. What would you do, if it were your child? That's the obvious question and Munro is excellent as the emotional and conflicted mother and wife, with Messrs. Craig and McGoohan performing sensitively too, polarising family and community attitudes and posing questions about the value of life, choice and religious freedoms in a fashion that does give us a conclusion, but one tinged with guilt and regret. It is still a subject dealt with in courts around the world 50 years later, and does make you think.