Comments on: House, Episode 5 (Season 1): “Damned If You Do” — A Re-Review

By: Cedric

Cedric — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:49:47 +0000

Thanks for the reviews. What incensed me was how the patients (again) withheld important information from the doctors. Sure, if your kid was adopted, that might not be too important, but the head nun says that when you join a convent, you are “cleansed”, and that she thought telling the docs about the sister’s abortion was “medicaly unnecessary”. Good grief! All of the sudden, the head nun is a doctor???

I also caught the lack of inventory management for the epinephrine syringes. It’s entirely possible that Cuddahe is a terrible hospital administrator as well as bad doctor!

I also don’t understand why there are glass walls all over the place but that’s another question. (:

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:38 +0000

On the IBD and smoking thing Rosa is right.

Smoking is thought to be somewhat protective against Ulcerative Colitis (I think the evidence is that smokers don’t get ulcerative colitis) and that it makes Crohn’s Disease worse.

I do not think that it’s correct to recommend smoking in a patient with ulcerative colitis (mainly because of the risk factor for lung cancer) but I aren’t sure if there’s any evidence it’s effective in established disease.

By: late to the party

late to the party — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 07:12:38 +0000

I’m not an expert, but given that the Catholic Church doesn’t approve of IUDs, wouldn’t the nun have had it removed when she renounced her wayward youth?

By: Rosa

Rosa — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:39:10 +0000

What I learned in med-school is that there are two main types of IBD: colitis ulcerosa and crohn disease. I was told that smoking would be ‘good’ for colitis ulcerosa but it would be bad for crohn disease. In this episode no distinction is made between the two types.

By: S

Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:47:18 +0000

damigiana> While it’s fun to speculate, the seventh circle (violence) is split into three rings: violent against people and property, like warmongers and such; violent against the self, people who committed suicide either directly or through neglect. The last circle has two groups: those violent against God (blasphemers), and those violent against nature as you mentioned earlier. However, the latter involves “usurers” – people who charge interest on money loans – as well as “sodomites”, which doesn’t always refer to… well. XD The modern understanding of the word.

Of course, now I’m imagining a silly comic where Wilson says they would be standing in a river of fire (first ring), with House replying, no, he meant the sodomite bit. Hehe.

By: melly

melly — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:02:10 +0000

Shouldn’t the confusion about how much epinephrine House administered be fairly easy to confirm? The needles must be labeled and I’m fairly certain that hospitals are required to keep inventories. Even if the needle was lost it shouldn’t take more than a minute to compare the inventory in the drawer to the most recent count sheet. Also, the drawer that House pulled that needle from seemed to be unnecessarily well stocked for an exam room in a clinic- how many people do they have going into anaphylactic shock each day? And shouldn’t there be a lock on the drawer? I can’t go into a drug store and buy Sudafed off the shelf but I can go to the clinic and overload on epinephrine? Not a street drug, granted, but it still could kill you.

By: damigiana

damigiana — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:12:20 +0000

I’m not sure anyone still reads this, but I found a (non-medical) hilarious but subtle point at the end. At the end of the episode Wilson tells House they’re in the sixth circle of Hell, which is the one for the unbelievers: seems correct, since Wilson is Jewish and House atheist. House claims they should be in the seventh, then their conversation gets interrupted.
The seventh circle contains the violents, and a large part is dedicated to those “violent against nature” part, i.e. homosexuals. Tongue-in-cheek much?

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:34:11 +0000

Agnosticism is less about not being sure about the existence of a god, but more about acknowledging that human beings cannot know whether god exists due to the lack of adequate evidence either way.

It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist (or theistic) at the same time, in a roundabout fashion. I believe the position is usually described as “We do not have enough information to make this determination with certainty; however, with the information I do have, I [believe/don't believe] that god exists”.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:46:16 +0000

@S-Zan

> It must therefore be true that one cannot be both agnostic and atheistic at the same time

You missed the fundamental difference between the two terms. One is about knowing, while the other is about believing. Whether you believe in a god or not, you can acknowledge that you don’t really know for sure. Hence, there are such things as an “agnostic theist” and an “agnostic atheist”.

I don’t think there was a problem with the way Foreman used the word ‘agnostic’. There’s not enough information to determine whether he fully understands it. Cameron states her lack of belief, and Foreman’s question probes for the rationality behind that belief. Cameron could then say “fine, there’s a chance that a god could be out there, but I still don’t believe in it at all”.

By: jo

jo — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:06:51 +0000

PLEASE Don’t confuse IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) with IBD (inflammatoy bowel disease) – they are very seperate and IBD is very much worse than IBS. I know because I have it.

I got it when I gave up smoking. I have not had a cigarette for nearly four years and don’t miss it at all much of the time…but sometimes, when the pain hits and I have to deal with such a horrible illness, I often think about starting again just to get rid of it!