<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: House &#8211; Episode 18 (Season 2): &#8220;Sleeping Dogs Lie&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202</link>
	<description>a blog of medicine, comics, television, science and other fun stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:50:22 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gabriela</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-1160183</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-1160183</guid>
		<description>Hi
I&#039; ve just seen the episode. In my opinion, I think House just didn&#039;t bother to read either Cameron or Foreman&#039;s papers. It is the same attitude he takes when he ignores patients to play with his Gameboy or doesn&#039;t bother to turn up in their rooms until it is absolutely necessary. As for the Cameron/Foreman verbal fight, yes, I think, he didn&#039;t interefere because he just wanted to see how far they (particularly Cameron) would go. He even makes a remark to Wilson implying something like Cameron should learn from him or sth like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi<br />
I&#8217; ve just seen the episode. In my opinion, I think House just didn&#8217;t bother to read either Cameron or Foreman&#8217;s papers. It is the same attitude he takes when he ignores patients to play with his Gameboy or doesn&#8217;t bother to turn up in their rooms until it is absolutely necessary. As for the Cameron/Foreman verbal fight, yes, I think, he didn&#8217;t interefere because he just wanted to see how far they (particularly Cameron) would go. He even makes a remark to Wilson implying something like Cameron should learn from him or sth like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cookie</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-1045814</link>
		<dc:creator>Cookie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 12:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-1045814</guid>
		<description>I didn&#039;t see a fight coming over the site. Well, being friendly is always good for you.
What I really want to say is it&#039;s miserable that you are not treated like a friend when you thought you two are friends. That&#039;s kind of cruel.
Before this episode, I thought Cameron was too serious sometimes. But today I think Foreman is totally a jerk over the article thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t see a fight coming over the site. Well, being friendly is always good for you.<br />
What I really want to say is it&#8217;s miserable that you are not treated like a friend when you thought you two are friends. That&#8217;s kind of cruel.<br />
Before this episode, I thought Cameron was too serious sometimes. But today I think Foreman is totally a jerk over the article thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-979933</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-979933</guid>
		<description>&quot;I liked the way that there were no clear winners or right answers in the ethical debates. Nobody was right.&quot;

HOUSE was right. He basically explained this concept to Wilson when they spoke about whether Cameron was justified in being upset. It&#039;s true, everyone else lost but don&#039;t forget the last scene, House is sleeping like a baby.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I liked the way that there were no clear winners or right answers in the ethical debates. Nobody was right.&#8221;</p>
<p>HOUSE was right. He basically explained this concept to Wilson when they spoke about whether Cameron was justified in being upset. It&#8217;s true, everyone else lost but don&#8217;t forget the last scene, House is sleeping like a baby.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diseraph</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-849059</link>
		<dc:creator>Diseraph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 13:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-849059</guid>
		<description>I find myself amused by the initial comments made in this blog for this episode. Awi certainly should have proof-read all of the dozens of posts they had made, and least used the &#039;preview&#039; button. And perhaps just simply added some spaces between points so their point could be made more easily. However Awi is not the only poster around that does this, and I personally think it should belong in the dozens of forums already out there, instead of diluting one of the few very professional reviewing websites. 

As for Cameron, I&#039;ve already had many diatribes about her in previous episodes but just the sake of continuity of the discussion, my opinion would be that she would not last 5 minutes with her own case load because of the fact she throws patient confidentiality out the window any time and her patients would either sue and/or she&#039;d lose reputation/career. The fact she cannot keep her feelings to herself (which is probably the writer&#039;s fault for making their points with a sledge hammer) and the it&#039;s obviously impact on her professional and team development is extremely immature and superficial. So many problems could be solved in the workplace if there is appropriate staff mediation and communication. Barring legal issues, Foreman&#039;s last comments in the episode are hardly rare and not confined to medicine, despite how moral people claim to be. 

To leave on a good note, I really enjoyed the ethical dilemmas in this episode, despite the fact it rare to see the partners equally cruel to each other. I think TV show Scrubs also made a good example of a similar case where a father needed a kidney and the son was convinced by the doctors to give a part of his, only to find out that they&#039;re not blood-related. The difference is, that where bitchiness and self-preservation ruled House, &quot;doing the right thing&quot; and family ties surrounded Scrubs. My point is that the former appears to really strives to show the worst side of people to exhibit an ethical debate and this is the result: people arguing what they would do in that situation based on their own ethics and various backgrounds. 

For those who would have thought the patient would have gotten off scot-free about using her girlfriend to survive, look up Survivor&#039;s Guilt in any reputable resource.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find myself amused by the initial comments made in this blog for this episode. Awi certainly should have proof-read all of the dozens of posts they had made, and least used the &#8216;preview&#8217; button. And perhaps just simply added some spaces between points so their point could be made more easily. However Awi is not the only poster around that does this, and I personally think it should belong in the dozens of forums already out there, instead of diluting one of the few very professional reviewing websites. </p>
<p>As for Cameron, I&#8217;ve already had many diatribes about her in previous episodes but just the sake of continuity of the discussion, my opinion would be that she would not last 5 minutes with her own case load because of the fact she throws patient confidentiality out the window any time and her patients would either sue and/or she&#8217;d lose reputation/career. The fact she cannot keep her feelings to herself (which is probably the writer&#8217;s fault for making their points with a sledge hammer) and the it&#8217;s obviously impact on her professional and team development is extremely immature and superficial. So many problems could be solved in the workplace if there is appropriate staff mediation and communication. Barring legal issues, Foreman&#8217;s last comments in the episode are hardly rare and not confined to medicine, despite how moral people claim to be. </p>
<p>To leave on a good note, I really enjoyed the ethical dilemmas in this episode, despite the fact it rare to see the partners equally cruel to each other. I think TV show Scrubs also made a good example of a similar case where a father needed a kidney and the son was convinced by the doctors to give a part of his, only to find out that they&#8217;re not blood-related. The difference is, that where bitchiness and self-preservation ruled House, &#8220;doing the right thing&#8221; and family ties surrounded Scrubs. My point is that the former appears to really strives to show the worst side of people to exhibit an ethical debate and this is the result: people arguing what they would do in that situation based on their own ethics and various backgrounds. </p>
<p>For those who would have thought the patient would have gotten off scot-free about using her girlfriend to survive, look up Survivor&#8217;s Guilt in any reputable resource.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vick</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-804845</link>
		<dc:creator>Vick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-804845</guid>
		<description>On the lack of more obvious, more lethal symptoms of the plague:
It was explained away in the episode as being suppressed by steroids, this may or may not make sense, but it wasn&#039;t mentioned by a lot of earlier comments

On sleep disorders associated with the plague: there is no real account of this, but no doubt the writers read about one case somewhere which presented with this as a symptom and decided to throw it for fun. Combined with the above point it may be almost medically sound.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the lack of more obvious, more lethal symptoms of the plague:<br />
It was explained away in the episode as being suppressed by steroids, this may or may not make sense, but it wasn&#8217;t mentioned by a lot of earlier comments</p>
<p>On sleep disorders associated with the plague: there is no real account of this, but no doubt the writers read about one case somewhere which presented with this as a symptom and decided to throw it for fun. Combined with the above point it may be almost medically sound.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheChris</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-712027</link>
		<dc:creator>TheChris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-712027</guid>
		<description>Interesting bit about Amanita, it&#039;s generally not considered a high cause of toxic death... not unless it is ingested intentionalls, and I don;t think the DEA would let a show talk about Amanita so very openly.  They like to keep the legal dissociatives on the down low.

But, cool note, Amanita is supposed to be the drug behind alice in wonderland, and through the looking glass.

Also, to all you silly folk interested in amanita.... it is not a good drug.  It is extremely dangerous.  They did call one species death cap for a reason.  The hallucinations provoked are terrifying and uncontrollable, indistinguishable form reality.  To use a colloquial expression: baaaaad news bears</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting bit about Amanita, it&#8217;s generally not considered a high cause of toxic death&#8230; not unless it is ingested intentionalls, and I don;t think the DEA would let a show talk about Amanita so very openly.  They like to keep the legal dissociatives on the down low.</p>
<p>But, cool note, Amanita is supposed to be the drug behind alice in wonderland, and through the looking glass.</p>
<p>Also, to all you silly folk interested in amanita&#8230;. it is not a good drug.  It is extremely dangerous.  They did call one species death cap for a reason.  The hallucinations provoked are terrifying and uncontrollable, indistinguishable form reality.  To use a colloquial expression: baaaaad news bears</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mathilde</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-677394</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathilde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-677394</guid>
		<description>I love spoilers and take benefit of others, like you, being far ahead of us. 

I read with interest the comments, and would like to add colonoscopies can be very much pain in the butt. I felt like Shawarma on a stick! Having like two meters of &quot;gardenhose&quot; inside feels bad, and I was even slightly sedated by a nurse!

But I agree the powder-stuff you are supposed to drink is not pleasent either. Only way to sink it is to remember it tastes no worse in big sips than smaller ones and take huge sips! It is like Castor oil mixed with sour lemon!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love spoilers and take benefit of others, like you, being far ahead of us. </p>
<p>I read with interest the comments, and would like to add colonoscopies can be very much pain in the butt. I felt like Shawarma on a stick! Having like two meters of &#8220;gardenhose&#8221; inside feels bad, and I was even slightly sedated by a nurse!</p>
<p>But I agree the powder-stuff you are supposed to drink is not pleasent either. Only way to sink it is to remember it tastes no worse in big sips than smaller ones and take huge sips! It is like Castor oil mixed with sour lemon!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dread</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-587229</link>
		<dc:creator>Dread</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-587229</guid>
		<description>First post here, but I&#039;ve followed this for a while and it&#039;s always informative. I have little to no medical knowledge, but there was something I wanted to ask about. I found it strange that the dilemma revolved around a liver, as this is the only internal organ which regenerates. Aside from the dangers of doing the transplant, would Max have suffered any adverse effects until her liver grew back? And what impact on day to day life do other donated organs have (i.e. if you donate a kidney, does this affect you at all)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First post here, but I&#8217;ve followed this for a while and it&#8217;s always informative. I have little to no medical knowledge, but there was something I wanted to ask about. I found it strange that the dilemma revolved around a liver, as this is the only internal organ which regenerates. Aside from the dangers of doing the transplant, would Max have suffered any adverse effects until her liver grew back? And what impact on day to day life do other donated organs have (i.e. if you donate a kidney, does this affect you at all)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flyndaran</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-530067</link>
		<dc:creator>Flyndaran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-530067</guid>
		<description>Sleep deprivation varies by individual.  Some people have had damage to brain sections forcing them to remain incapable of sleep forever.
Normally after 24 plus hours many become increasingly paranoid and less rational.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sleep deprivation varies by individual.  Some people have had damage to brain sections forcing them to remain incapable of sleep forever.<br />
Normally after 24 plus hours many become increasingly paranoid and less rational.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale</title>
		<link>http://www.politedissent.com/archives/1202/comment-page-2#comment-467191</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politedissent.com/archives/1202#comment-467191</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know if anyone is still checking on old episodes, but when I watched a rerun the other night, I wondered about the sleep deprivation debate, Scott, you said that House was essentially correct. Inasmuch as I don&#039;t take Wikipedia as gospel, did you mean that someone would go insane after 5 days, and die after 10 (more or less)? Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know if anyone is still checking on old episodes, but when I watched a rerun the other night, I wondered about the sleep deprivation debate, Scott, you said that House was essentially correct. Inasmuch as I don&#8217;t take Wikipedia as gospel, did you mean that someone would go insane after 5 days, and die after 10 (more or less)? Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

