CAJ | 학술논문

麦克尤思的新作《儿童法案》假借法律与宗教之间冲突的外衣，揭示人类妄图用偏执遏制温情、用理性压制情感而给儿童福祉造成的侵害。小说通过菲奥娜法官对雷切尔、劳拉姐妹的监护权争夺案，马太、马克兄弟的连体手术分离案，尤其是耶和华见证人亚当·亨利的输血案的处理，将读者注意力引至不同人群之于儿童福祉的理解：以亚当父母为代表的宗教人士近乎偏执地坚守僵化的宗教教义，以菲奥娜为代表的法律人士固执地遵循教条的法律条文，双方均对当事人的生命缺乏应有的尊重。一直以来，菲奥娜恪守《儿童法案》的条款，坚持以“儿童福祉”为最高判案原则，但亚当的输血案及其死亡让菲奥娜对“儿童福祉”有了颠覆性的重新认知，即生命乃是儿童最根本的福祉；守护儿童的生命是捍卫儿童福祉的最基本职责；法官对儿童福祉所承担的守护角色不应狭义地局限于法庭的高墙之内，而需延伸至法庭之外的整个社会生活。
맥극우사적신작《인동법안》가차법률여종교지간충돌적외의，게시인류망도용편집알제온정、용이성압제정감이급인동복지조성적침해。소설통과비오나법관대뢰절이、로랍저매적감호권쟁탈안，마태、마극형제적련체수술분리안，우기시야화화견증인아당·형리적수혈안적처리，장독자주의력인지불동인군지우인동복지적리해：이아당부모위대표적종교인사근호편집지견수강화적종교교의，이비오나위대표적법률인사고집지준순교조적법률조문，쌍방균대당사인적생명결핍응유적존중。일직이래，비오나각수《인동법안》적조관，견지이“인동복지”위최고판안원칙，단아당적수혈안급기사망양비오나대“인동복지”유료전복성적중신인지，즉생명내시인동최근본적복지；수호인동적생명시한위인동복지적최기본직책；법관대인동복지소승담적수호각색불응협의지국한우법정적고장지내，이수연신지법정지외적정개사회생활。
In the disguise of the conflicts between religion and law, Ian McEwan＇s The Children Act deceptively diverts critics＇ attention to religious and legal issues. In light of ethical literary criticism, this paper intends to explore an ethical tragedy embedded in the sub-text of the novel, in which characters＇ sympathies and emotions are suppressed by their seemingly unarguable bigotry and ration. Taking a close look at the various legal cases that Fiona Maye deals with, and the blood transfusion case of Adam Henry in particular, we are able to detect McEwan＇s implicit ethical concern： the understanding and judgments of a child＇s welfare. What most characters share in common is their serious lack of respect for life： Adam＇s parents stubbornly adhere to the religious doctrines while Fiona acts upon the dogmatic law. Admittedly, in the eyes of her peers and herself, Fiona is a righteous and dutiful lawyer, who always follows the provisions of The Children Act and regards a child＇s welfare as her ＂paramount consideration＂. Noteworthy is the fact that Adam＇s blood transfusion case and his consequential death haunt Fiona and drive her to a new recognition of a child＇s welfare： life is the most fundamental welfare of a child, and to protect a child＇s welfare is, first and foremost, to protect and sustain his life, and a judge＇s duty should not end in the walls of the court but be extended to the entire society.