House you Magnificent Bastard your awesome.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was kinda bored actually, after the great lead-up to this in the previous season.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I enjoyed it quite a bit. I thought the casting was excellent -- especially Andre Braugher, Curtis Armstrong, Franka Potente, Derek Richardson.
Definitely wouldn't want an episode like that every week, but I thought it was a marvelous season opener. I do wonder to what degree it will be back to business-as-usual next week.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh me accents slipping! He positively sounded british at one point when he was arguing with the head doctor.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
True. "I've not been taking my meds".
It was more of a movie than an episode. Actually, it reminded me a bit of Sandra Bullock in 28 Days.
I'm curious to see what House is like when he gets back.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It was more of a movie than an episode.
And that's exactly how they were advertising it.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Hugh Laurie may quit House because his fake limp is causing him real-life pain.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would not be too unhappy to see Laurie play some other roles.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Oh noes! I thought his poor leg might be causing him pain having to limp all day. You can't have House without House!!! gah!
Still, I thought the episode was rather good. Character Development. Maybe he can magically get better on some episodes and walk normally.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
He didn't sound too serious in that quote-- he even joked about needing to do Yoga! These things always get blown out of proportion.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
They could have House fall into a vat of acid, requiring massive facial reconstructive surgery, and then get Tim Roth to play him. Still working on what to do about the height discrepancy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
have David Tennant!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought this was going to be the last season anyway, so that's not particularly alarming to me.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Just saw the first episode today. First off want to say: wow! What a masterpiece! The episode is very well put together, great shots, great flow, excellent acting, good writing. I was very impressed by the quality - it's rare to stuff of this level on network TV.
I liked how the episode played with, and then brutally subverted the "insane people are all misunderstood free spirits" trope you see in a lot of Hollywood productions. It manages to show the asylum inmates as real people with real problems, and celebrates the good parts of their personalities as well as showing the dysfunctional behavior. Likewise, the doctors are shown mostly as good people trying their best to help the patients, not always succeeding like miracle doctors, but not being the stereotypical evil dictatorial psych ward staff either. Actually, that's one of the things I like about House - it's pretty honest about the way people are. It doesn't fall back on stereotypes often, anyway.
I was going make a statement about the unlikelihood of an attractive married woman in her 30s falling in love with a 50 year old psych ward patient, but then I realized I've read (and heard) far stranger actual love stories. Still, I can just imagine the awkward conversations. "So, how'd you two meet?" "In a psychiatric hospital."
I'm curious to see where this will go. The episode felt a lot more like the last episode of an entire series than the first episode of the season... they've taken away House's key attribute: his grumpiness. At the end of this episode he's happy and a little goofy and content with himself. Either they're going to have something absolutely terrible happen in the next few episodes, or radically change the show's dynamic. Not that change is bad, just unusual in episodic TV shows. (how many times has doctor x or y been fired/quit and come back in a episode or two?)
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I enjoyed it, but can't help but think that an emotionally healthy (or healing) House is the end of the series, so I don't really expect it to last. (ETA: or, what Dobgreath said.)
I also thought the music box cure was a little too neat. I do hope we get more of Dr. Nolan, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Dr. Nolan" has a new show, so he is unlikely to return to House. Alas!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I had heard the the series was wrapping up soon regardless, because they try to be realistic about their medical mysteries and there's only so many obscure combinations of diseases that would actually prove a challenge for House. So this season was intended to wrap things up one way or another.
And they may have gotten rid of his grumpiness, but I don't think they got rid of his generally mean sense of humor. I think there's room for him to continue making snide remarks in general but have an actual honest relationship with someone he cares about (*cough* Cuddy *cough*)
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The name of the next episode of "House" is Epic Fail according to IMDb. Makes me wonder...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty sure the type of virtual reality they were using doesn't exist (or at least isn't commonplace enough for the very idea of it to not be a bigger deal than the show made it out to be). Regardless I was fairly impressed with the CG (I didn't recognize it so I assume they did it solely for this episode). It seemed like a lot of work to go through to make one episode.
Then again I guess they normally have all those CGI lungs and stuff to showcase what's wrong with the body, so they could just have that team do something else.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The technology for that sort of VR exists. It's just very expensive. Which probably explains why Mr. Let-the-Internet-Diagnose-Me had $25,000 to throw around.
And the CG was so clearly by the same folks who do the inside-the-body -- the "fingerprint" was definitely the same.
I liked this week. And yay! More Andre Braugher! According to IMDB, next week too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Hugh Laurie may quit House because his fake limp is causing him real-life pain.
According to my dad's orthopedist, there's a reason for that -- he uses his cane wrong! You're supposed to put the cane on the opposite side of the body from the injured leg, not the same side. (My dad got lectured for doing the same thing.)
The new episode is awesome in everyway.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
They've had doctors/physical therapists tell House he's using the cane wrong on the show before, he always ignores them. I think the idea (from what I remember when I had to walk with a cane for awhile) is that if you use it on the same side as the leg it's supporting, much less weight gets put on that leg, thereby reducing pain. The downside is it causes you to constantly lean in that direction. Using it on the opposite side keeps you more balanced, but puts more weight on the bad leg, resulting in more pain. It makes sense for House's character to refuse to use the cane correctly insofar as he's gone to rather more extreme lengths to avoid/diminish leg pain.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did you follow my link?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I'm annoyed that Jennifer Morrison is leaving House just when I thought that she and Chase were actually going to be featured more. Now we're going to be stuck with Thirteen and Foreman - watching their whole thing last season sucked so I probably won't watch much. I wish the show was House, Chase, Cameron, Wilson, and Cuddy. Bring back Amber too!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I think they need someone new in the team. The whole Foreman-Thirteen drama has already been played and can't support another season. Taub was never given an interesting enough storyline and I don't see one coming now (even if he comes back). As for House-Wilson-Cuddy, sure, there's going to be more of that, but the show will feel a bit stale if this is all that's going on. Don't get me wrong, I loved the episodes aired so far, but I don't think they can keep it up a whole season.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: According to my dad's orthopedist, there's a reason for that -- he uses his cane wrong! You're supposed to put the cane on the opposite side of the body from the injured leg, not the same side. (My dad got lectured for doing the same thing.)
Dr. Huxtable said the same thing. That's clearly dispositive.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
This has been a remarkably terrible season so far. I never expect too much intellectual stimulation from House -- it's about the characters, after all -- but seriously? All the vegetable needed to regain mental health was a box? All House needs to get over pain is practicing medicine... which he already did, not even considering the stupidity of physical pain being dependent on House's hobby?
I hope it gets better or ends soon.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: This has been a remarkably terrible season so far. I never expect too much intellectual stimulation from House -- it's about the characters, after all -- but seriously? All the vegetable needed to regain mental health was a box? All House needs to get over pain is practicing medicine... which he already did, not even considering the stupidity of physical pain being dependent on House's hobby?
I hope it gets better or ends soon.
There's probably alot of actual justification for this medically so I'm not inclined to call it far fetched.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Considering we don't actually know what caused the woman's mental health problems, nor do we know what went on between being given the music box and when she was released, and furthermore that we don't know what the music box actually was to her...well, you're potentially oversimplifying by a great deal.
As for House, he doesn't 'get over' the pain by practicing medicine, he gets over the pain by focusing all of his energy and attention on something that he can completely dive into. For awhile it was cooking, and I think he's using other medication as well, just not as addictive and dangerous as vicodin. And anyway, we always knew he'd get back to the hospital.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
How did tonight's episode end? I had to put Lego to bed, so I stopped watching at the point where . . . .
SPOILERS!!!
House cures the guy's phantom pain in his arm with the mirror trick.
Did they cure James Earl Jones? What did he have? Did anything else happen of note?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
* * * * * *****MEGA SPOILERS in response to Brinestone: * * * * * * *
High drama: James Earl Jones dies. I'm not sure what he had, but it turns out that Chase went down to the morgue and took blood from a lady who died from something that was fatal to the dictator and injected it in him. Foreman thought it was his fault (for changing treatments) that he died. Autopsy was to be done by a doctor from the patient's country and the morgue was locked, but House encouraged him to break in and find out for himself. Turns out there was an armed guard, but Foreman finds the sign-in sheet and that Chase had been there that morning and figures it out and confronts Chase.
Chase justifies what he did and makes it clear that Cameron had nothing to do w/ it. He then asks Foreman to give him advance notice if the cops are coming for him so that he can tell his wife. Foreman asks if he thought he could murder someone without consequences and Chase says no. This is clearly going to take a few episodes.
I don't like this new story line at all. I hate it that they had Chase decide to do that.
Oh yeah, and at the end of the show we see Foreman burning the sign-in sheet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, THAT's what he was burning. I thought it was a lab test result of some sort.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Spoilers * * * * I found it interesting that apparently Cameron never told either of them about the patient she murdered a few seasons back. Because the show has already taught us that yes, you can get away with murder consequence free.
But I suppose that's only the old and powerless it works for.
Normally I'd be annoyed with this sort of story because you know nothing too bad can happen. But if the show's ending and one of the actresses is already leaving, it does open up the possibility of actual peril. It'll be interesting to see what they do with their moral quandry.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They killed Darth Vader!
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Who did Cameron kill? My House viewing history is hugely spotty. I missed most of last season, which I think I'll have to watch on DVD someday to figure out why he decided to check himself into the psychiatric hospital.
Rivka, I assumed that was what he was burning. They didn't show us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* The guy basically told Chase, "I'ma go back and start killing more 'cockroaches' as soon as you get me better." Speaking of medical ethics, of course, Chase shouldn't have killed him. But medical ethics aren't eh only consideration, are they?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They are when you are a doctor. It isn't okay to be a vigilante just because, and especially because, people trust you to heal them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So being a doctor trumps absolutely all other considerations?
I'm not saying one should get to keep on being a doctor if one chooses to violate those considerations, but I don't see at all why being a doctor is an impervious shield against all other moral and ethical considerations.
quote:It isn't okay to be a vigilante just because, and especially because, people trust you to heal them.
Here's the real question: is it OK not to be a vigilante when you know that refraining from doing so will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and immeasurable pain and suffering?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Something that was never mentioned or asked was who his successor would be. It bugged me.
And yeah, I agree with everything else that has been said. I don't like that they had Chase do that. Not only is it despicable, it seems out of character for him.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If he wants to start killing people as a vigilante, he needs to stop being a doctor first.
If he wants to stay a doctor, then he can't kill people entrusted to him because he is a doctor.
Yes, it is okay to NOT be a vigilante and to turn someone over to the people and agencies created to deal with insane murderers before violating one's position of trust.
In other words, I don't believe those were the only choices, and Chase's decision was a violation of his own oaths and cheapens the entire trust and profession.
It's like saying that the defense lawyer of a man on death row should suddenly, in the middle of an appeal, turn to the judge and say, "Yep, he did it, he told me, and if he wins appeal, he'll do it again." There's a reason that would be a gross violation of ethics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, it is okay to NOT be a vigilante and to turn someone over to the people and agencies created to deal with insane murderers before violating one's position of trust.
What agencies or people? The show took that option away when they had the only governmental force brought to bear on the character be a civil trial subpoena.
quote:If he wants to stay a doctor, then he can't kill people entrusted to him because he is a doctor.
Well, sure, I think he should stop being a doctor at this point. The moral and ethical thing to do would be to `fess up and accept the punishment.
quote: It's like saying that the defense lawyer of a man on death row should suddenly, in the middle of an appeal, turn to the judge and say, "Yep, he did it, he told me, and if he wins appeal, he'll do it again." There's a reason that would be a gross violation of ethics.
Quite frankly? Morally speaking, the only right thing to do in such a situation would be to stop defending him at once. You can't testify against him since that would be inadmissible, but he's going to kill people again. What is it about your (the defense attorney's) ethics that makes them more precious than another human life, or in the show's case, hundreds of thousands of lives?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But Chase didn't, metaphorically, stop being this guy's attorney. What he did was exactly like my analogy: he torpedoed the appeal. Worse than that: he strapped him into the electric chair and flipped the switch himself, and he was able to do it because of the position of trust he had been placed.
After the fact is too late. If Chase wanted to go vigilante, he should have quit being the guy's doctor and turned in his medical license, and foresworn his oath BEFORE he went in for the kill.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
* * * * * SPOILER * * * * Chase did not inject the dictater with the ladies blood. He took the blood from the dead patient to have test run on it... causing them to give the wrong meds which House said will put it into overdrive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:After the fact is too late. If Chase wanted to go vigilante, he should have quit being the guy's doctor and turned in his medical license, and foresworn his oath BEFORE he went in for the kill.
Which would have had precisely the same impact as doing nothing at all in terms of whether the dictator would live or die, katharina. It's a bit of a cop-out. His choices :do nothing, resign and try to kill him (which would certainly fail-the guy had very effective bodyguards), treat him, or sabotage the treatment.
The first three options had a total certainty hundreds of thousands of 'cockroach' (I forget the tribal name) deaths if he was cured.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Rivka, I assumed that was what he was burning. They didn't show us.
I know. I just meant that your assumption made more sense than my assumption.
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: Something that was never mentioned or asked was who his successor would be. It bugged me.
They did, actually. Chase said something about the news saying there were going to be democratic elections.
quote:Originally posted by paigereader: Chase did not inject the dictater with the ladies blood. He took the blood from the dead patient to have test run on it... causing them to give the wrong meds which House said will put it into overdrive.
Good point. I meant to mention that.
I agree with everyone that what Chase did was horrific and drastically OOC. Hesitating, making a mistake he might not have otherwise have made -- those are believable. Actively cheating the blood test that way, no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's hard to know what anyone would do confronted with that. Remember, shortly before that he was confronted with one of the dictator's minions, talking about massive programs of random ethnic kidnappings, rape, murder, and corpse desecration. Then, after frightening his wife, the guy says, "It'll be more of the same when I get back."
Horrific indeed.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
JEJ did a fantastic job... despite the fact that I kept thinking about Coming to America for the first 15 min. of the show.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling I was getting something wrong there and just couldn't remember the details.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, lemme second the question: who did Cameron kill before? I've seen every episode, but I can't recall that.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In episode 303 Informed Consent, there was an old guy who was in extreme pain and asked them for an overdose of morphine. Cameron was horrified by the idea and House basically told her that everyone does it at some point. The end of the episode is House coming to the chapel where she's bawling and telling her that the old guy died in the night and that she did the right thing.
Checking the House Wiki, it seems the old guy was actually a medical researcher. So not old and powerless after all. I suppose in the House universe it's ok to kill a patient if they ask you to.
Edit to add: I think it bothers me so much because they act like there's nothing in place to handle cases where the terminally ill are in pain. It can't really be that no one in Hollywood has heard of Hospice, can it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, yeah.
I'd hardly call that murder, though. Unless you'd call solicited assisted suicide murder.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I definitely would. Even if you consider it justified, it's still murder.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So would I. She purposefully caused the death of human being.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By that definition, someone being attacked with lethal force who responds with lethal force is a murderer, Katharina. Do you believe that?
Anyway, to me 'murder' is killing without justification. Killing with justification is something else.
quote:I definitely would. Even if you consider it justified, it's still murder.
Why is it murder though, rivka? What defines murder? Any causing of the death of any human being, regardless of circumstance?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. Self defense is not murder. Killing enemy soldiers in a war is not murder.
And every murderer thinks they have a justification.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So killing someone in war who doesn't want to die and who may not even have asked to be in that position in the first place is not murder...but assisting in the suicide of someone begging for help and clear-minded about the matter is murder?
And no, not every murderer thinks they have a 'justification'. For some folks, justifications don't really enter into it-they can do it, someone has something they want (or some other desire), so they kill `em. That's not really the same thing as a justification.
And even if every murderer had a justification, that has no bearing on whether or not a given justification was actually really, really good-or bad.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It does have bearing on whether "justification" makes it not murder.
quote:So killing someone in war who doesn't want to die and who may not even have asked to be in that position in the first place is not murder...but assisting in the suicide of someone begging for help and clear-minded about the matter is murder?
I disagree that anyone in that situation could possibly be clear-minded. Otherwise, yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So then someone who is suffering major should not be able to make decisions concerning their medical care, yes?
And no, it doesn't have that bearing, rivka. Except to say: just because you have justification doesn't mean it's not murder. But not to say: it doesn't matter if you have justification, it's still murder.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So then someone who is suffering major should not be able to make decisions concerning their medical care, yes?
I didn't say that.
And I believe we have reached the going-in-circles point. So I'm done.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry, something got mangled there. Switching between windows and all. What I meant to say was, "So then someone who is suffering major pain and dying should not be able to make decisions concerning their medical care, yes?" Not just 'suffering majorly'.
You didn't say that, but you did say someone in those circumstances couldn't possibly be clear-minded. So do you think clear-mindedness is not a requirement for someone making their own medical decisions in those circumstances?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Someone wanting to off themself is very different from taking action to kill someone else.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think there are legitimate reasons to believe that assisted suicide is wrong, but I can't fathom a consistent definition of murder that includes such a thing. What distinguishes the soldier on the field from an ordinary person, that doesn't apply to a person in irrevocable pain that wants to end their life?
There's lots of words for killing people, each of which has specific connotations and varying degrees of wrongness. Murder to me implies a malicious, deliberate act of killing an unwilling person for your own benefit. Using that word to describe a doctor hesitantly agreeing to end the life of a terminal patient who wants to die is implying a maliciousness to the doctor that I think has no business being implied. Wrong? Maybe. If it's murder, what precisely is your definition murder?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Someone wanting to off themself is very different from taking action to kill someone else.
Just as helping someone who has made their wishes known (maybe even in advance) in desperate pain with no real hope for relief this side of the grave is different from killing someone because you want their shoes.
Why should the same word be used for both actions?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Causing the death of a person and preventing the saving of a person are not the same thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
With sufficient certainty, what exactly is the difference?
And how does that deal with the problem of calling killing for greed murder while also calling killing for mercy, perhaps even love, also murder?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd just be happy (well, happi-er) if someone would define murder for me in such a way that it applies, as opposed to throwing around random comparisons.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, finally actually saw the episode. And wow, that was pretty intense. (I had skipped over what started the whole "murder vs suicide" debate to avoid spoilers). I thought James Earl Jones did a fantastic job making the dictator believable, both in his sinisterness, the way he justified things to himself and the charisma he had that would get other people to follow him.
I think what Chase did in this episode could be legitimately called murder, and it is in the best interests of society to find, prevent and prosecute such acts of vigilantism.
I also think Chase made the correct choice.
Vigilantism is a complicated subject. If society as a whole accepted it, you'd have violations of trust all over the place and people either getting themselves hurt or hurting the wrong people. And if Doctors/Lawyers who are given special trust to do their jobs were to violate it on a whim, the entire profession(s) would fall apart, which is detrimental to society.
But there's lots of things in life that, if done on a small scale can be good, even if on a mass scale they would be terrible. Where to draw that line is incredibly difficult. The Lawyer who keeps his mouth shut... is he benefiting society enough by being trustworthy to justify that the murderer he kept free is going to kill one more person? Two more people? I have no idea where to draw that line, and I would not judge someone for making either decision. But he would need to be made an example of (in the Lawyer's case probably by losing his job and possibly being countersued) so that society could continue to function.
In Chase's case, we're talking about an entire society that would be destroyed if he hadn't acted. I wouldn't judge him for doing his job, but I absolutely feel he was justified in betraying it. I would say that resigning as a doctor would be the correct choice, except that, as he says, the dictator would become a martyr if people found out. So I'd say wait a few months until the attention is directed elsewhere, then quietly resign, would be best.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think what Chase did in this episode could be legitimately called murder, and it is in the best interests of society to find, prevent and prosecute such acts of vigilantism.
I also think Chase made the correct choice.
Well put. I completely agree.
quote: In Chase's case, we're talking about an entire society that would be destroyed if he hadn't acted. I wouldn't judge him for doing his job, but I absolutely feel he was justified in betraying it. I would say that resigning as a doctor would be the correct choice, except that, as he says, the dictator would become a martyr if people found out. So I'd say wait a few months until the attention is directed elsewhere, then quietly resign, would be best.
For me it's a simple question: is one's oath worth more than hundreds of thousands of lives? It seems to me that the answer is only 'yes' if you're not staring those deaths in the face, and it's always 'absolutely not' if you are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I also think Chase made the correct choice.
So he should have no problem pleading guilty to murder, since after all surely his own life is worth sacrificing for the net good. Or is he only good enough to kill other people?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think he'd be a better person if he was willing to do that, with the caveat that, as already noted, making the dictator into a martyr would make the whole thing pointless. If in a few months the transition of power is complete and there was a way to turn himself in without causing more problems, then yes.
I also wouldn't be particularly angry with him if he didn't. He made a difficult choice that had not clear right solution. That already took a fair deal of courage (whether you think it was misplaced or not) and is clearly putting him through a lot of psychological fallout. Not turning himself in is selfish but I don't think it makes him a bad person, just a normal one.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ... In Chase's case, we're talking about an entire society that would be destroyed if he hadn't acted. I wouldn't judge him for doing his job, but I absolutely feel he was justified in betraying it. I would say that resigning as a doctor would be the correct choice, except that, as he says, the dictator would become a martyr if people found out. So I'd say wait a few months until the attention is directed elsewhere, then quietly resign, would be best.
Technically, we can't verify that. All we really know is that the expat character claims to have been involved in rape and torture under orders and that the dictator seems to verify the worst through not denying it.
But we don't really know what will happen when his underlings get back and do what it is that they may be planning and whether or not the positive signs that seem to be reported in the news are actually a trend or just wishful thinking prior to a civil war.
Revealing his role could be bad for another reason, if people in his country do find out his role in this, there may be short-term reprisal attacks against Western medical personnel in the country and long-term mistrust which may lead to some pretty unintended consequences if they are dealing with things like malaria or HIV.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It seems to me that the answer is only 'yes' if you're not staring those deaths in the face, and it's always 'absolutely not' if you are.
The issue, as I touched upon before, is that the oath IS worth some number of lives (I don't know how many). If doctors can't be trusted, society as a whole suffers and then different people die. However, the choice seems pretty clear when what's at stake is the utter devastation of (another) society.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So he should have no problem pleading guilty to murder, since after all surely his own life is worth sacrificing for the net good. Or is he only good enough to kill other people?
That would be the ideal choice, yes.
quote:Technically, we can't verify that. All we really know is that the expat character claims to have been involved in rape and torture under orders and that the dictator seems to verify the worst through not denying it.
C'mon, Mucus. In that episode, we also have the fact that he's been charged with a host of crimes by a civil court, that news organizations worldwide (else how did the gang know about it in the first place?) reported the first massacres, too.
quote: Revealing his role could be bad for another reason, if people in his country do find out his role in this, there may be short-term reprisal attacks against Western medical personnel in the country and long-term mistrust which may lead to some pretty unintended consequences if they are dealing with things like malaria or HIV.
This is a good point. If known, there would be mistrust...at least, on the part of the dictator's supporters. Among those saved by his death, though, well, I don't think they'd be angry at doctors.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Depends on how it got spun (and could potentially affect multiple countries). It's a better example than I had previously thought of of a doctors oath being worth some indeterminate number of lives.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: C'mon, Mucus. In that episode, we also have the fact that he's been charged with a host of crimes by a civil court, that news organizations worldwide (else how did the gang know about it in the first place?) reported the first massacres, too.
*shrug* Even Bush and company have been charged with a bunch of crimes by not just a civil court, but a criminal court in Spain IIRC. News agencies have been wrong anyways too, but this is a bit of a sidetrack.
My point isn't necessarily that the dictator is not as bad as the characters think he is, after all, he's fictional, but just that the characters don't really have all the facts but are acting as the phrase goes, judge, jury, and executioner anyways.
For all we know, his number two guy (who doesn't exactly seem to be a gentle soul) could just go back and start up all over again, making Chase's sacrifice moot.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Causing the death of a person and preventing the saving of a person are not the same thing.
With sufficient certainty, what exactly is the difference?
And how does that deal with the problem of calling killing for greed murder while also calling killing for mercy, perhaps even love, also murder?
Murder is wrongful killing. At least that's what I understand the word to mean. So determining whether the act is right or wrong in a given instance determine whether it's murder or not. Not the other way around. You can't say, "But that's murder, so of course it's wrong," because that begs the question.
As far as the difference between causing an act and not preventing an act, I find it hard to imagine that you're really asking that. You don't see any difference between pushing someone onto a train track when there's a train coming, and not pushing them off of it?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It's murder if it's wrong (Paraphrase)
That makes sense, although obviously by itself it says nothing about whether assisted suicide is murder.
quote:You don't see any difference between pushing someone onto a train track when there's a train coming, and not pushing them off of it?
In this particular instance there's somewhat of a difference because there is a danger to you if you are pushing them off the track, and I think it's reasonable to let people worry about their own safety before that of random people they don't know. I also think it's unreasonable to ask people to spend significant effort to save every life they could hypothetically be saving. (As Spock says in the new Star Trek, it is morally commendable but not morally obligatory).
But in a situation where it takes approximately as much effort to prevent a death as to cause a death (I can't think of a good hypothetical right now), then no I don't think there's a moral difference.
Edit: Possible scenario. Suppose you're watching an oncoming car and see someone about to wander obliviously across the street. If you call out a warning you can probably get the person to get out of the way. I would NOT blame a person who was paralyzed with fear or surprised or whatever for not acting in time. But I would blame a person who realized they could help and then consciously chose not to. Such a thing is difficult to prove in court though.
[ October 08, 2009, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: As far as the difference between causing an act and not preventing an act, I find it hard to imagine that you're really asking that. You don't see any difference between pushing someone onto a train track when there's a train coming, and not pushing them off of it?
That doesn't strike me as a valid comparison. Rather the situation is standing by while someone else pushes, or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is not a valid comparison.
Rather, pushing someone in front of a train when they boast about how tough they are and all those people better beware, or not.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh? Why are we adding the boasting part?
To Rakeesh: At first I was a little confused by Lisa's statement, but I think the difference is deliberately pushing someone onto a train track, or deliberately choosing not to push them off of the track if they are standing there obliviously (which is hard to do unless you're actually deaf since trains are pretty obvious when they're coming. I think it's a reasonable hypothetical for the situation, except for the potential danger to yourself while pushing them off.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because the man merely said he was going to do it. He wasn't standing at the controls of the gas ovens. Considering it had reached the news, he was in the United States, and his antics were hardly a secret, it isn't like the ONLY thing between this guy and his home country was his doctor (to whom he had entrusted his life).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The train comparison was I think a more abstract comparison, simply addressing the "is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die, period." At least that's how I interpreted it.
In Chase's case, other people might have tried to kill the dictator, but those people would be far less likely to be successful. (According to the guy, and I'll take his word for it, people try to assassinate him with some frequency). No, Chase didn't know for sure what was going to happen either way, but he knew what was likely to happen and didn't have a whole lot of time to figure out what to do.
The better argument (IMO) is the "second in command is probably going to carry it out anyway." It's not like plenty of cruel dictators in Africa haven't been killed and the cycle of bloodshed has continued anyway. Chase wasn't acting with perfect logic, he was acting in response to a woman who had been raped who he was being forced to take blood from to save the man who allowed it, and the frantic pleas of a guilt ridden expatriot (think that's the right word, not sure). Emotions are far from perfect but they're what most people end up making decisions based on.
Granted, it's a fictional situation, but even as a fictional person I don't think it's fair to criticize him unless you've been in a situation of similar pressure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because the man merely said he was going to do it. He wasn't standing at the controls of the gas ovens. Considering it had reached the news, he was in the United States, and his antics were hardly a secret, it isn't like the ONLY thing between this guy and his home country was his doctor (to whom he had entrusted his life).
He said he was going to do it...had done it before...and had neither through word or action given any reason for anyone to think he wouldn't do it again. In fact, you'll recall in the episode that elements in the country were gearing up for more.
Yes, it had reached the news, he was in the USA, he didn't have a secret identity. But the show removed the possibility of some outside force stopping him-the only thing law could muster up was an ignorable civil court subpoena. He completely disregarded that. Only random chance, aside from the choice we're discussing, stood between him and his future crimes.
Yup, he'd entrusted his life to his doctor. That trust is not worth hundreds of thousands of other lives.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fake Edit to clarify: Chase did not know for certain what was going to happen either way, but people rarely know things for sure, they act on probabilities. We have rules governing us based on what the usual probabilities will be for usual situations, but there was nothing usual about Chase's situation.
If Chase was the dictator's personal physician and he knew for absolute fact that the instant the man got better he was going to press a button launching a nuke, killing millions of innocent people, and that the second in command would not do it? What if Chase was 99% sure the dictator would push the button, or if there was a 50% chance the second in command would do it? Where do you draw the line and why?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In fact, you'll recall in the episode that elements in the country were gearing up for more.
IIRC, the only evidence we have for this is the expat who lied at least once and may very well have been lying the second time too. Plus, he was only claiming that based on hearing the radio news in country ramping up their rhetoric. "Everyone lies" and all that.
The show is practically based on the premise that initial impressions and obvious treatments are frequently wrong and/or lead to even worse unintended consequences. We don't know if this situation is really an exception or not.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Except Chase specifically asked the Dictator (seriously does someone know that guy's name?) if he was going to do it, and he very specifically did NOT deny it, merely try to justify it. (I guess he did claim that the raping/abusive part was an accident. Make of that what you will). But I think Chase had good reason to assume that there was a close to 100% chance that genocide would occur if the man lived.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thats why I said back in my earlier post "the dictator seems to verify the worst through not denying it", but that is just "seems."
We don't typically convict people unless they prove that they didn't commit a crime, only if we can prove that they did. Especially in this case when he has little reason to justify or explain himself to Chase anyways.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, Chase should do nothing because...well, he has doubts, but they're doubts that involve a lot of stretching, and don't do much if anything to dispute great big heaps of evidence against him.
The show is also based on the premise that sometimes you have to make that choice despite the very real possibility of bad consequences-because doing nothing is worse.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't recall saying that Chase should do nothing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:It's murder if it's wrong (Paraphrase)
That makes sense, although obviously by itself it says nothing about whether assisted suicide is murder.
quote:You don't see any difference between pushing someone onto a train track when there's a train coming, and not pushing them off of it?
In this particular instance there's somewhat of a difference because there is a danger to you if you are pushing them off the track,
Suppose there wasn't. Or better, suppose that instead of a danger to me, there's a danger to someone else. And not even a life-or-death danger. Let's say there's a mugger holding someone up, and I see a 16 ton anvil (like in the cartoons) about to fall on the mugger's head. I can yell and alert the mugger to the anvil, which will presumably allow him to escape being bashed to death. Do you think it's murder if I don't warn him? Would it be different if there were two victims and the mugger had already shot one cold dead?
In all honesty, I can see a moral side to actively killing the guy in House. But I don't think that's what happened.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Edit: Possible scenario. Suppose you're watching an oncoming car and see someone about to wander obliviously across the street. If you call out a warning you can probably get the person to get out of the way. I would NOT blame a person who was paralyzed with fear or surprised or whatever for not acting in time. But I would blame a person who realized they could help and then consciously chose not to. Such a thing is difficult to prove in court though.
Suppose the guy crossing the street was wearing a Nazi uniform. Would you blame me for not helping?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Because the man merely said he was going to do it.
He didn't merely say it. He's done it, and he "merely" said he was going to continue. There's a bit of a difference there. He'd already been established as a genocidal murderer. The issue that pushed Chase over the edge was when he made it clear that he absolutely intended to keep going until the bitter end.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Suppose the guy crossing the street was wearing a Nazi uniform. Would you blame me for not helping?
I was addressing the basic principle "is killing someone the same as letting them die." Getting into the nitty gritty of "does a particular person deserve death" and "how much does the distance you have from the actual killing weigh in against how much punishment they deserve for their crimes" requires all kinds of decision making process for individual circumstances, a lot of which is subjective (or so uncertain to make objectivity difficult).
In this particular show's case, we're talking about brutal genocide. It doesn't get much worse than that, so it's easy for me to take Chase's side. If the situation had been less extreme I'd be a lot less certain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't recall saying that Chase should do nothing.
What should he do, then? The show outlined the choices pretty clearly: continue treating, sabotage treatment, or some other option that wouldn't have any impact on the matter one way or another.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I haven't decided yet
I was mainly addressing those things that have been presented as things that we "know" when we don't actually know these things.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm so annoyed. This week's episode looked like it was going to be massively creepy, and I was really looking forward to it. Instead I'm watching baseball. Sigh.
It would have to be the game that doesn't believe in ties on before House.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For me it's worse than that-I didn't get all of last week's episode either, due to a power outage. Though I ought to be able to watch it on hulu soon, if not already.
I'm not irritated that House got bumped back for the ball game, even though I didn't remotely care about it. But, I mean, extra innings in a series game? Sure, that oughta bump. What frustrates me is wondering why when I set a show to record, the damn thing can't just record the actual show instead of 8-9:02pm on that channel. I guess that's a thing of the future, though.
Posted by anonymous (Member # 486) on :
Who is Lucas in the episode currently available on hulu? The person who is watching Cuddy's baby when House comes in?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by anonymous: Who is Lucas in the episode currently available on hulu? The person who is watching Cuddy's baby when House comes in?
House hires Lucas from time to time to spy on his friends and co-workers. I remember House hiring him to spy on Wilson once as well as a couple other times. I don't really have feelings about the character either way, he's just... there... sometimes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
He's a mildly creepy PI.
As for this week's ep: grah gah GRAH!!! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No more creepy than House, right? After all, House was his employer.
Cuddy is losing cred with me, for whatever little that's worth. Not going with House? That's fine. I very much understand that choice. But why has she started playing House-style games in turning him down?
I mean, for example. I could buy the fake-address thing being a ruse of desperation. After all, House is perfectly capable of tracking down the place and crashing it. But the whole, "I was told to invite you to have a turkey sandwich," smacks almost of cruelty. The whole, "We've broken up because of you and I can't stand you for it," thing too. Did she think she was going to succeed with that?
And finally, just how exactly did Lucas find out all (from his speech to House it really was all) the details of House's illness? Wimping out and not telling House she's dating him, I can buy that under the circumstances. Telling Lucas all about what must for House be a very humiliating bit of information under the circumstances? Why do that, if she did? Of course Lucas could've just found out on his own.
Cameron's departure, strangely enough, worked for me, because for all that I don't necessarily think Chase was wrong to do what he did, I also don't think there's any coming back from that either. Though blaming it all on House was pretty stupid, IMO, especially because he's channeled his ruthlessness into a very valuable, to humanity that is, endeavor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Cuddy's a bitch.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
And House is an ass. Your point being that they're not compatible? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Up until recently under nobody's sane definition would Cuddy earn that label. But she's pulled some stunts lately that sort of fall into, IMO, the jerkwad category. Which would be fine except it's so baffling.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Still holding out for either a House x Cameron or Cameron x 13*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Cameron not being homosexual, and House not being remotely interested in Cameron, I'd advise against breath-holding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow! I wonder, is this little retribution on Wilson's part just an I-got-screwed-out-of-a-lobe-of-liver-by-a-jackass action, or something more, as House says, baby steps?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ACK!!! Yes, let's pressure the potential organ donor's sister. It's not like that kind of unethical business could get you SUED or anything!!!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, House has hardly ever been one to let fear of lawsuit stop him when the clock is ticking. Anyway, it might've saved a life-isn't that worth the possibility of a lawsuit?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And Wilson's complicity?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wilson usually goes along with House in the end anyway, fear of lawsuit or not. And since he was willing literally to put his body where his mouth was, doesn't he get a pass on getting pushy with the sister? Not legally speaking, of course, but sometimes the law doesn't really care about the actual reality of a situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The actual reality of the situation is that it is MONSTROUS to show up at the home of a woman whose brother just died to pressure her into signing the release. Leaving aside why it didn't bother anyone on the show, why doesn't this seem to bother anyone IRL either? I follow some other House discussions, and no one seems to be bothered by this but me.
Are we all that used to House doing horrible things, or do other people not see this as horrible?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A bit of both I think, its not like House hasn't done a lot to dead bodies before in the morgue or digging them up without permission in order to.
Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any question that the person is in fact dead from either party. No lying either, aside from the proposal to lie in order to accommodate the woman's principles.
So "wrong", probably. "Monstrous" or "MONSTROUS", on the level of capital letters as something special in the history of house? Meh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Are we all that used to House doing horrible things.
This. I am liking this show less and less as it becomes more and more about how badly House treats everyone and how everyone lets him do it. Previously, there was at least some reasoning or struggle; now he is just an ass. It isn't even justified by his work anymore as he barely seems to be doing any of that.
When you get to the point of harming patients with wrong and unnecessary procedures just so you can screw with your "team", your utility as a doctor is somewhat compromised.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah. *sigh* And the season started off so WELL, too. Between this and the whole Cameron thing, I'm not enjoying the show so much lately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was pretty annoyed when all but Cameron came back to him. He has gone from misanthropic and cynical to sociopathic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The actual reality of the situation is that it is MONSTROUS to show up at the home of a woman whose brother just died to pressure her into signing the release. Leaving aside why it didn't bother anyone on the show, why doesn't this seem to bother anyone IRL either? I follow some other House discussions, and no one seems to be bothered by this but me.
Monstrous? They were trying to save the guy's life, and they weren't compelling her to give up the organs. They didn't go grave-robbing.
I would be bothered by it if it weren't driven by literal life-or-death necessity. When your buddy's dying in a hospital somewhere and the choice is between, "Comfort him while he dies," or, "Emotionally pressure the grieving sister," well, that's a pretty damn easy choice to make. For me, anyway. I wouldn't feel great about it, but then I suppose doctors doing triage on a battlefield aren't all that happy with that process, either.
So, to answer your question, since 'horrible' always must depend on context, no, I don't think it's horrible.
quote:This. I am liking this show less and less as it becomes more and more about how badly House treats everyone and how everyone lets him do it. Previously, there was at least some reasoning or struggle; now he is just an ass. It isn't even justified by his work anymore as he barely seems to be doing any of that.
He was working a great deal in this episode, it was just off-screen. Helped solve at least two cases, I believe.
I'm not sure how the show is becoming 'more about' House treating people badly and them letting him get away with it. His behavior has actually gotten somewhat better since he went crazy-he made a pretty decent effort, I though, to open up to Cuddy, and was actually behaving well at the dance until it blew up in his face. He stuck with his buddy Wilson in spite of disagreeing in the strongest possible terms with what he was doing. He warned his buddy Wilson about his other friend, and turned out to be exactly right.
quote:When you get to the point of harming patients with wrong and unnecessary procedures just so you can screw with your "team", your utility as a doctor is somewhat compromised.
He's done that sort of thing all along, just in service to his curiosity. This time he did it to put together his team again which would go on to save a bunch of lives.
If the ends don't justify the means now, why did they justify them before so many times?
Why wouldn't the others come back to him? Cameran, Chase, and Foreman are the only ones who knew about Dibala at all for one thing. 13 and Talb, on the other hand, have the same sort of monkeys on their back as House does. But with House it's a giant gorilla, and with them it's maybe a few howler monkies.
I really don't see how things have changed for the worse, certainly not as dramatically as you're suggesting.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)