I have to admit I wasn't looking forward to watching this film. I sought it out only to see Patrick McGoohan's performance, which in my opinion could have been larger.

Having said that, I did indeed watch the whole film, and it actually went by rather quickly, meaning it wasn't the chore I expected it to be.

The premise of the plot is simple: a couple's daughter, Ruth, and their neighbor's son get into a boat accident, and the girl's father (Harris) saves the both of them. But the man saves the boy first, causing his daughter to end up with more severe injuries. Those injuries result in blood loss requiring a transfusion at the local hospital. But her parents refuse to allow the doctor (McGoohan) to perform the transfusion, due to their religious beliefs. Despite the staff's pleads, and eventually the mother's change of mind, the girl dies.

From this point, the plot revolves around parent's relationship, and the doctor trying to get what he feels is justice for Ruth, in order to prevent other children from dying due to what he feels are fanatical religious beliefs. It all culminates in the father's trial under a British child-cruelty law.

The film never flat out tells us just what Ruth's parents religion is (I am guessing to protect the studio from libel), but it appears they are Jehovah's Witnesses (according to other sources, so this may be incorrect). Other characters are identified as Jewish, Catholic, and Church of England, while the doctor is portrayed as more of a man of science. The wife converted in order to marry Harris, but never really agreed with his beliefs.

Not only is the idea of religious freedom covered, but also the idea of The State having more control over people's children. The doctor mentions more than once that he feels the State should be able to step in and give treatment regardless of parents' views.

In the end, the viewer gets the point of the story, without their own religion being insulted. No one is proven right or wrong. You can side with whichever character you wish, for the most part. Only the most fanatical may be offended.

As for production, there are some interesting shots showing ominous skies and seas, interesting camera angles, etc. Acting is good overall, Harris being perfect as the father. Munro was a bit "weepy" for my tastes, but her portrayal of a conflicted mother and wife is for the most part not too "syrupy". McGoohan plays the doctor in a very quiet and restrained manner. I expected at least one major burst of anger from him (ala "Danger Man" or "Prisoner"), but he kept things low-key. In fact, his first batch of lines are delivered so softly I had to turn up the volume to hear them!

All in all, I'd say this was a rather dark, but well made film of a touchy topic, which is handled fairly and doesn't insult or take sides. I'd like to have seen a little more "fire" in certain scenes, but that's one person's opinion.

Filmed in Durham, 'Life for Ruth' is a surprisingly effective story about a man who puts his daughters life in the hands of God and ignores the advice of surgeons. Ruth dies and a court case ensues in which the tension of the situation is brought to a head. Well acted by Michael Craig and especially Patrick MacGoohan as a journalist who comes to see both sides of the argument. This is one of those typically British films with dignity that makes use of unusual locations.