House – Episode 3 (Season Three): “Informed Consent”
Despite Joel Grey in a guest starring role, this was another sub-standard episode of House. Frankly, some of the worst medicine in the series yet. Medical explanations and spoilers follow.
Ezra Powell, a famous researcher, is in his lab dissecting some rats. A subtle tremor of his right hand can be seen and he is coughing as he is examining the rats. His breathing becomes worse and he starts gasping for breath before falling unconscious to the floor.
Powell is admitted to the hospital and House and his team take over the case. They are unsure if the breathing problems are due to the heart or to the lungs. They mention such diagnoses as amyloidosis (a condition where an abnormal proten builds up in certain organs leading) and long term exposure to toxic chemicals, but both the EKG and chest x-ray are reportedly normal (which is strange as they repeatedly refer to fluid in the lungs — pulmonary edema — which does show up on x-ray).
House orders an exercise stress EKG. This is the first big mistake of the night because that’s entirely the wrong test. The team is concerned with heart failure — that the heart is not beating as strong as it should and fluid is backing up in the lungs. An exercise stress test doesn’t evaluate this; instead it shows how the electrical system of the heart reacts to stress. While it is a valuable tool for picking up ischemic heart disease (narrowed arteries) or irregular rhythms, it tells nothing about how strong the heart is beating. They need an echocardiogram for that — like the one they ordered in last week’s episode.
Anyway, Powell is too frail to walk on the treadmill, so the test is stopped. Cameron tells House that there’s too much fluid in Powell’s lungs, so House tells her to get rid of it. Chase performs a thoracentesis and drains some fluid. And this is the second big mistake. Thoracentesis drains fluid from the area around the lungs (pulmonary effusion), not from within the lungs themselves (pulmonary edema). It simply wouldn’t have worked (according to my notes, this isn’t the first time the writers have confused pulmonary effusion and edema. They also did it in the first season). Regardless, they stress Powell again, this time having him use his arms. When this doesn’t raise the heart rate enough, House injects some epinephrine (adrenalin) into Powell’s IV. This gets the heart racing enough for the test, which unsurpsingly is normal (because it’s the wrong test!). Powell takes this opportunity to inform the team that he knows he is dying and would like them to help him die.
House is now more suspicious that the cause of the shortness of breath has to do with the lungs. He considers Strep pneumoniae (a common bacterial cause of pneumonia) and mycoplasma (a less common cause of pneumonia). Powell refuses any more tests. He informs House plainly that he wants to die and would like House’s assistance. House strikes a bargain: if he can’t make the diagnosis in twenty-four hours, he will help Powell die.
The team needs to make the most of the twenty-four hours. They run a variety of tests including amylase (looks for pancreatitis and some lung cancers), d-dimer (looks for clotting disorders), C Reactive Protein (measure the amount of inflammation), urine tests, and a bone marrow biopsy. He has Cameron search Powell’s lab for clues. The blood tests are all normal and Foreman reports that no bacteria grew in the blood cultures (but this can take up to 48 hours, even if you “spin them down.” Bacteria can only grow so fast). The bone marrow biopsy showed abnormally few cells, but showed no obvious source of the problem. An MRI of the brain is ordered when House suspects Powell might be having memory problems, but it too is normal.
With the twenty-four hours up, the team returns to Powell’s room. House tries to bluff and tell Powell that he has multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood forming cells in the bone marrow), but Powell quickly realizes House is lying and tells House that he expects him to keep his word and help him die. Later, House returns to the patient’s room with a syringe of morphine. Cameron and Foreman protest and then leave the room, but Chase just shuts the door and closes the blinds. House injects the morphine into the patient who quickly goes into pulmonary arrest and codes. As soon as this happens, House grabs the rescue gear and intubates the patient, placing him on a ventilator. Now House can continue his tests without Powell’s “whining.”
Taking another look at the MRI, House notices that it went low enough to reveal that the top of the lungs show scarring. An autoimmune disease — it could be lupus — is suspected and Powell is started on immunoglobulin and a colonoscopy is ordered. The colonoscopy is normal and the immunoglobulin makes things worse. A diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis is now considered and a lung biopsy is performed — which is also normal (but while pulmonary fibrosis would cause shortness of breath, it wouldn’t cause fluid to build up in the lungs). Powell now develops a right pneumothorax (a collapsed or “dropped” lung) and a chest tube is placed to reinflate the lung. As he is stitching the chest tube into place, House notices that Powell has no sensation on his right hand. The team wakes Powell up, who is understandably angry, and he refuses any more tests. Through some sleight of hand, House is able to confirm a lack of sensation to the left leg, right arm, and abdomen. The differential diagnosis now consists of Kawasaki’s Disease (”Which would explain the kidney failure,” Chase says. What kidney failure? When was this mentioned?), lymphoma, and sarcoidosis. A skin biopsy is obtained by Cameron and tests negative for all three (but of those three, only sarcoidosis shows up in the skin, and not in random biopsies). However, when exposed to a Congo Red (a special red dye), it fluoresces, showing that the patient has amyloidosis (and that Chase was right all along, for once). Unfortunately Powell has the most severe form of amyloidosis and it is terminal (though it is not quite as immediately fatal as suggested — but then, it’s not clear how long Poweel has had the disease). He dies later that night under what can be called suspicious circumstances.
Clearly I had some concerns with the medicine in the show tonight. They often run unnecessary labs and tests, but rarely do they spend fifteen minutes obsessing on a test that is the wrong test in the first place. Furthermore, expecting a frail elderly man to be able to perform an exercise stress test is a little ridiculous. That’s why there are several chemical stress tests — where the heart is stressed chemically instead of by exercise — and none of them use epinephrine. It was just sloppy medicine. Wrong test, wrong procedures, and symptoms that were suddenly mentioned (kidney failure) or forgotten about (the tremor).
The soap opera aspect was better this week. The issues raised are intriguing, and we spent several hours discussing them in medical school. Under what circumstance, if any, is physician assisted suicide acceptable? How can you make sure that depression, common in severely ill patients, is not influencing the patient’s desire to die? Is there an ethical difference between withdrawing support and letting the patient die, and taking a more active role? All good questions, and all addressed to some extent during this show. No firm answers were provided — which is as it should be — but the show did an excellent idea raising the correct questions.
This episode earns a B for the mystery, but only a C for the solution because the final answer seemed too random (a red thong!) and really should have been found sooner — but the medicine overall earns an even-worse-than-last-week D-. The soap opera/non-medical aspect were very good and deserve an A.
The previous House review
A list of all prior House reviews
September 19th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I was also pretty shocked at the exercise stress test instead of something more realistic (and pracical, like a chemical stress test. I’d have graded it lower for the mystery, but I thought the red thong was awesome! Its always something weird like that to tip off House.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Cameron seems to have regressed. In the first couple of episodes of the season, she was pretty tough. Now she’s back to annoying everyone with her sensitivity.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
I hadn’t realized the medical aspects were particularly subpar in this episode. That’s one of the reasons I like your reviews. I felt that they stretched this diagnosis out far too long and everyone doing so many tests themselves was a bit ridiculous, even to my totally non-medical eye.
However, the different perspectives regarding the ‘right to die’ and euthenasia was far more interesting than the medical aspects anyway. They gave each of the doctors their own view, yet ultimately nothing was really resolved.
What about the irradiating babies experiments that Powell did? Was that genuine?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Dr. Scott,
I came for the comics but have really come to enjoy your House recaps. In popular fiction, I often encounter doctors like House who are said to be “brilliant diagnosticians” who almost have a “sixth sense.” They are usually well known for this.
So, what’s the story? Are there really doctors like that? Do you nudge friends at coctail parties and say, “That’s Winslow. Brilliant diagnostician. He can look at kid with a rash on his neck and black toenails and tell you that he had bananas for breakfast in Zambia.”
I wonder the same thing about “cops who can think like the killer” and “weathermen who can sense how tornadoes think”, but maybe you can help me with the doctor question.
Thanks,
September 19th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
I don’t think Cameron was being annoying at all. Cameron usually takes a pretty hard-line moral position and this really challenged her. Might be the first time that whatever ‘right’ stance she took still sucked, and it shook her up quite a bit.
Chase was one of the first ones to suggest euthanasia and Foreman was dead set against it and they chose Cameron to demonstrate the the conflict.
I think they’ve done a good job balancing Cameron so far this season, she doesn’t come off quite so uptight and doesn’t bug as much anymore.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Cameron’s character is getting to be too tired and whiny.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:19 am
I would just like to point out (a side note, really) that Chase is right more often then the other two (statisticly, counted by Not-Me, ‘coause I’m too lazy to dig…)- he’s just not agresive enough for it to stick out in some people’s minds, I guess…
September 20th, 2006 at 1:21 am
First, thanks for the posts, Scott. I have been following your reviews since mid-season 2, and they always shape the episode I’ve just seen.
I have always considered Cameron’s extreme pathos tolerable, but this episode seemed exceptionally overwrought. How can someone get through med school and residency without having a wholly-formed attitude towards euthanasia? Her back and forth was child-like ; someone in her position should be well past that by now.
I was much impressed with Chase’s handling of the situation. It would appear that he was the only one of the three that had the courage of his convictions and stick with House. Perhaps it was House’s sticking by Chase during the earlier episode where the patient died due to Chase’s negligence. Or it could just be that there are un-plumbed depths to Chase’s character.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Slight nitpick with the sensory diagnosis – when House begins sprinkling the patient with ice water, the patient flinches when hit in the chest. House then disappears under the sheets, and only gets a reaction from the LEFT foot, with the right one unresponsive. However, in the next scene, walking down the hall, House states that the good doctor had sensory failures in the right hand, abdomen (?!), and LEFT LEG. There was no lack of abdominal feeling shown. Did I miss a test (we rewound and watched again – he definitely screwed up the leg)?
My wife suggested that Powell might have had a stroke, after his hand didn’t react; she thought it confirmed when his right foot was non-responsive, as this would be lack of sensory input down an entire side. Would this have been reasonable?
Also – Cuddy’s pregnant. My wife has it pegged as House’s, but she watches too much Grey’s Anatomy…
September 20th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Here’s an interesting take: Chase considered the priesthood and left the seminary. Foreman is an ex-con. Yet Chase is for euthanasia and Foreman is against. I’m not completely surprised that Foreman would be opposed, but a former candidate for the priesthood endorsing euthanasia? Perhaps they’ll delve into Chase’s past a bit more this season?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Once again: Never let me be sent to House’s hospital. There you are, having surgery, and some unsterilized gimp waltzes in, sans-mask, and starts cutting you open and stuffing tubes into your chest cavity with his unwashed fingers. How many of his patients later die from mysterious infections?
I agree, Cameron’s personality continues to annoy, and I’m finding the interaction between the characters a lot less amusing this season. Hopefully the writing will improve along with the medicine.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Bitacle Blog Search Archive – House – Episode 3 (Season Three): …
[...] Despite Joel Grey in a guest starring role, this was another sub-standard episode of House. [...]…
September 20th, 2006 at 7:33 am
They’ve been going out of their way to show House being more and more obnoxiously daring, snapping my suspension of disbelief (which is pretty high; I read comics, after all). That last scene was powerful, but not enough to redeem the episode. Still, I can’t wait for next week’s episode. It will feature a kid with autism, and that’s _my_ area of expertise.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:55 am
I also noticed the mentioning that kidney failure had happened… not sure when or how, but I attributed it to the fact that my friend that was stationed in Afghanistan had returned home and we were catching him up on the first two episodes beforehand.
Also, for those that are commenting that Cameron isn’t her usual bundle of sunshine will also notice that House has had the team pulling all-nighters in the past couple episodes and she just might get cranky when she doesn’t get enough sleep.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Mike,
Foreman’s stance against euthanasia is probably more driven by his future than his past. He wants to be a top doctor, that’s why he’s working with House in the first place. If he gets involved with euthanasia it puts that future at risk. The way I see it, Foreman walking out of the room wasn’t a moral objection, it was him protecting himself and his career.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:47 am
I noticed the kidney failure thing and the abdomen thing. And I was very annoyed by the cavalier disregard of sterile procedure in the OR. Other than that, I would never have caught the medical errors (being a writer and not a doctor).
I would just like to point out (a side note, really) that Chase is right more often then the other two
Makes sense. Foreman is a neurologist and Cameron is an immunologist and they both tend to push diagnoses from their areas of specializations. Chase is an intensivist and is more likely to see the big picture.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:01 am
One thing I do like about this season is Chase’s “I’ll try anything” attitude – want some extra tests on the quad? Sure! Want to euthanize the old man? Sure thing, Boss! Let’s give House a manly slap on the shoulder, and see what happens! It’s all good!
September 20th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I was confused as to what House’s “I’m proud of you” line to Cameron, as I initially took it in context with her actions regarding taking Powell’s flesh. After rethinking that a bit, and the fact that Cameron was in the hospital chapel at the end, it would seem that she was the one to euthanize Dr. Powell.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:03 am
One more thing (I’m over-posting today, sorry)…House has a fancy leather-bound “Euthanasia Kit”, complete with lethal morphine dose and syringe? Is this something they give you at med-school graduation? Are they monogrammed?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Official Comment
Mutt,
There are certainly doctors who have good insight, but nowhere near House’s level. Usually it’s more of an area of expertise. For example, I have a colleague who is very good with musculoskeletal issues, so any bone or joint concerns I discuss with him. Another excels with pediatric cases, another with dermatolgy and so on. No single doctor knows it all (that I know, anyway).
Tim,
I think the issue with Cameron is letting a patient die versus helping them die. The first is commonly encountered in training, but not necessarily the latter.
Dolphus,
I noticed the left/right discrepancy in the foot testing as well but figured I had just mis-remembered.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Official Comment
Jack,
I think it was Cameron who helped Powell shuffle off his mortal coil.
Keith,
It’s not a Euthanasia Kit — it’s just a fancy (and probably monogrammed and embossed)injection kit that House happens to carry morphine in. He used it on himself at one point last season when he was in severe pain.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Jack, I thought it was obvious that the point was that Cameron killed him. 2:30 in the morning, House wasn’t there, etc.
The chapel confused me, because she’s a confirmed atheist. Maybe she just needed a quiet place to hide.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Hmmph. I was only disappointed until they gave a comatose patient a colonoscopy, with no prep, and his colon was clean as a whistle. Then I was flabbergasted. If only my job were so neat and tidy…
September 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I have to disagree about the handling of the euthanasia issue in terms of raising the right questions and providing no answers.
First of all, the viewers are pretty much led to agree that Cameron made the right choice, since the choice presented was between the patient suffering until he died or killing him.
Seems to me that House’s subterfuge with the faked “death” inducing unconsiousness was a good example of what *could* have been “terminal sedation.” The patient could have been kept unconscious for whatever time was left – probably no more than a few days. Terminal sedation is a much more common practice in hospitals than outright euthanasia, from everything I’ve read. Admittedly, I have a biased perspective, but I strongly suspect the physician who helped script the show has a strongly biased perspective as well.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
It was all about the soap opera but at least it was soap opera in terms of medical ethics rather than who is sleeping with whom. Interesting that House, Cuddy and Wilson are all okay with doctor-assisted euthanasiam, House apparently having done it several times earlier. No easy answers but better handled than earlier ethically-disputed episodes such as Sleeping Dogs Lie.
The lack of informed consent or even any kind of information to patients or family members in Powells’ past research is shocking to someone who today has to go through review boards and ethics committees to get consent to use human subjects. Have things really changed so much in 40 years?
The exercise stress test bothered me too. Why not use a chemical stress test? Because then the heart would have been implicated the answer would have been too obvious at the beginning?
Chase often gets the diagnoses right. However the “Chase gets it more right than the other two” numbers were done on season 1 episodes with disputed methodology by someone who loves Chase. The stats on two seasons by someone unbiased could be quite different.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for a great review, Scott. (Have you been offered a job with the creative team yet?)
I also worry about the alleged baby experiments. Do you know if there is any truth in this? Or do you know any similar experiments?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
“MIT researchers fed radioactive oatmeal to residents of a state boys’ school outside Boston” from
The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War – by Eileen Welsome
http://www.amazon.com/Plutonium-Files-Americas/dp/product-description/0385319541
see also: The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments, by William Moss and Roger Eckhardt
http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00326640.pdf
September 20th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Wasn’t this written by David Foster, the doctor on the staff? If so, it’s even worse that they couldn’t get the medicine right. Maybe, as an old song goes, “they think they’ve made it simpler when they’ve made it slightly wrong.”
September 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
My problem is that Chase, Cameron, and Foreman used to be more individually refined and respected as experts in their respective fields. Now they’re often essentially interchangeable nurses.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I can’t believe no one talked about the possible freaky hookup of House and the barely legal girl! It’s kind of bizarre.
Regarding the scene where House injects Ezra with morphine: I did a double-take with Chase deciding to stay in the room. Dare I say new found respect? I agree with Adam that Foreman probably left because he didn’t want to tarnish his “record”.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Another thing. Probably isn’t the first and won’t be the last. But House coming into the OR unsanitized is just grating. I guess it makes for good drama but come on!
September 20th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Hi everyone, this the first time I’ve actually commented, but I was wondering on Kawasaki’s Disease, wasn’t that in the episode with the boy who had Paradyme Chester (or whatever it was called)? I thought it was mentioned that that didn’t affect anyone over the age of 5 or something. So shouldn’t that have been scrapped? Just wondering.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Official Comment
Brian,
Kawasaki is extremely rare in adults, but theoretically possible. It is also possible that he had Kawasaki’s as a child which damaged his heart then, but the results weren’t seen until he got older.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Alright, people nag about Cameron being moral and talks about everything we don’t want to hear, that’s my thoughts too, but in the Third season she is actually doing something about it this time. Yes it was a long trip up there but the result at the end was brilliant. Even not knowing anything medical, I knew the episode was going to get bad medicine in your review. If you look at my post last week Scott, I called it. And I saw how sloppy it was even though I didn’t know have the stuff.
My thoughts on the doctors helping patients die was sort of resolved when Cameron killed Ezra after he was diagnosed. My interpretation on the episode that it is wrong to kill patients if their is a cure in sight but if they are terminal and want to die to get out of pain, it sorta is the right call, even if you don’t want to do it. I know, to doctors, that you think I am insane for thinking that and interpreting that from the show but I think it’s a persons right to take over their life, as long as they arn’t depressed. Was he, they talked about it but never said he was depressed. If he was, then some reconsidering can take place, but it’s better to die than live a life (And you did say it wasn’t immediatly fatal, right?) in pain.
Great reviews Scott and the next one looks great and more on the mystery than charcter plots, so hopefully it has better medicine. But it’s always fun to look at their mistakes.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
“And I saw how sloppy it was even though I didn’t know have the stuff.”
I think I meant “Even though I didn’t know HALF the stuff” in it. Can I edit these, because I have know idea why I didn’t catch that in my preview.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
“I almost always get the diagnosis right, eventually.” (paraphrased from season 2 cliffhanger)
as do i. i run the unofficial “difficult patient service” at a large northeast teaching hospital. somewhat to both my embarrassment and my pride, they even call me house. so yeah, there is at least one like him out there…cept I have a dozen patients at a time, with generally mundane shit wrong with them, and angry, unrealistic, bargaining relatives. long before house i learned to disarm them all with the most outrageous words (and deeds NFS!) you could imagine. not quite as good looking as HL, but close enough for hospitalist work.
example you say? ok, once had a teenager with a mild concussion being dramatic and exagerating his disorientation while his parents worried themselves sick at the bedside. i asked him his name. he said KENNY. after a dramatic pause i exclaim “kenny! you’re goona die!” referring, of course to the cartoon character in south park that gets snuffed at the end of every episode as a running gag. as the parents gasp and the nursing staff nearly fall over (Dr D again!), the kid comes fully alert and says, excitedly playing into the trap, “except for the christmas episode!” (which, honestly, i did not know before then). parents, to their credit, realized the implication of such a retort and i discharged the kid to reassured parents. i do stuff like that every day.
the medical stuff is getting sloppy, i agree. it was much easier to make a synchronous diagnosis in the earlier episodes/seasons (i get about half of them from the opening scene alone), and the soap opera more pervasive, so less fun for me to watch now, but still admittedly love it. but i remain puzzled as to why civilians are so enthralled with this show, especially considering the highly technical nature of the early shows. when i first saw an episode (i was traveling…i don’t have a TV…bittorrent is my new best friend) i thought to myself OMG they made a TV show just for hospitalists! would really like to understand what the rest of you see in this, besides HL, who is off the hook good…
September 20th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
btw- ERDHEIM-CHESTER is the diagnosis you are looking for brian. thanks for playing.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Great commentary! I just “bumped” into this site because I was doing my weekly pulmonary fibrosis (among others) search. As a patient that bumped around the medical world for years without a completely correct diagnosis, (I have Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome) I love these “medical mystery” type shows. It’s very, very interesting to read some commentary about the accuracy of the show however. Kudos, and I’ll be back!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Haha. Dr.D . You are so full of crap. If you were trained in med school, you would know how to effectively use english grammar. You’re spelling is worse than mine. You even have the slang of a teenager, or mid twenties adult. I assume, since you became the unofficial diagnostic go-to-guy, you must be in your forties at least. You’re slang is up to date, and seeing as how you would have probably JUST BEEN FINISHING residency, or graduated already by the time the internet was around, Im sure you wouldnt have time to surf and follow along. You also have time to watch south park? It also appears as though you’re trying to hard to use words that just shouldn’t belong there, perhaps you’ve been using http://www.thesaurus.com too much.
Also, if you didn’t know that Kenny didn’t die in the christmas episode, then how did the kid fall into your trap. You didn’t know, and couldn’t possibly in the right mind, assume that this random kid watches south park, enough to quote and, mind you, right away retort that he didn’t infact die in the christmas episode…is proposterous. You could’ve come up with something at least a little more believable.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:18 am
I hate to say this is probably one of my least favourite episodes of House. I am very shocked you gave the soap opera an A… I thought it was a C, or D. I thought it was poorly done. They had a really interesting issue going there, but I just didn’t like the way they delivered it throughout the episode.
I love these reviews, thanks for explaining WHAT was wrong about this episode. The entire thing seemed off, all the medicine, but not being a doctor, I wasn’t sure what. Something about that exercise test seemed so weird though… I was just thinking, “I am SURE there has to be something else BESIDES this test. :|”
The only worthy thing about this episode was the end… loved that scene between House and Cameron.
Although, the issue in the episode did remind me of a topic my dad and I talked about, though not on the same level. I do believe it was the Milgram study/experiment, where they had someone shock someone else, until they potentially killed them [but not for real, they just thought they did] and it was all about obedience to authority. Those people had no idea what they were in for, it was a total violation of moral code and ethics… and yet, it contributed a great deal to the field of psychology.
Not as drastic of an issue, but the same underlying principle IMO.
Still, I wish they would have played out the idea better. House has really been lacking lately, I can say overall I’ve been disappointed with Season 3.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:15 am
HaHA
the trap was simply knowing kenny always dies, and anticipating the pt would rise to the bait. the christmas special beta was a bonus (for me and the crowd). otherwise, you couldn’t be more wrong. not unlike GHMD, i have wide expertise in many arcane fields. and i don’t both4er to proofread internet blogs. like this reply, it would be a waste of my time, but at the moment i just got the urge to play along…
also love gangsta rap. your turn.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:52 am
You’re not a doctor, you’re just a high school student who is facsinated with the concept behind house; a rude, witty, brilliant doctor. Not enough people watch south park in order to fall for your bait, and if that was the plan, it wasn’t nearly as good as something House would do. Also, you say your the difficult patient service go-to guy, then why is your best story about a concussion, in fact, a concussion in which the patient said he had. That requires no diagnosis at all, just the assumption that the kid was faking, so you set up a crappy trap.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Can we please get off the subject of Dr. D and only talk about the episode and Scott’s review. Who care whether Dr. D is a real doctor or not, this is not the place for this.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I also think that dr.d is not a real doctor
September 21st, 2006 at 9:18 pm
The writing on the show is hit or miss. I am still having trouble picturing Chase in a seminary. I also think that the apparent approval of euthanasis is disappointing and a bad business call. Talk about alienating people. It’s typical Hollywood to assume that most people think it’s OK.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Oh come on, Mike. No one with an ounce of compassion and decency would deny a patient’s right to a painless, dignified exit. You might be surprised at just how many well-educated, clever people think euthanasia is not only okay, but a necessary part of health care. Until the self-righteous, bombastic, religionist set waded in on the subject, euthanasia was practiced with relative impunity. It is stil practiced, though much more cautiously. The net result is that dying patients who should be given the ultimate favour: release from suffering, are being forced to endure it to the very bitter end.
When circumstances call for a decision about a terminally ill patient, whose prognosis is a painful, prolonged death, there really is only one ethical course of action: Mercy.
Would you force your dog to suffer a horribly painful death, or would you do the honourable thing and have him humanely dispatched? It is the quintessential hypocrisy to afford this mercy to our pets, and yet deny it to our human bretheren.
All life isn’t sacred; sometimes it is far, far worse than death…
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:49 am
Scott,
i noticed that House used a trocar to put in the thoracostomy, isn’t that against all modern medical thought (in addition to his lack of sterile technique and the miraculous instantaneous relief of the pneumothorax without the application of suction just with exposure to outside air)? i also noticed that Ezra didn’t have the bite marks from the rats, but, what can you do :)
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
On another point…
Now that House MD is in its third season, is it possible to move past the obvious artistic license taken by the writers regarding principal characters conducting tests and procedures they are grossly unqualified to perform? As laughable as it is to see House poking around in a patient’s brain, or Foreman up someone’s sigmoid colon, it isn’t likely to change.
Personally, I much prefer to enjoy the weekly mystery and the process of elimination taken to solve it. I also enjoy the frequently witty dialogue between House and everyone else on the programme. I’ve never been a soap opera fan, so I can take or leave the interpersonal crap.
Regarding “Dr D’s” question about why ‘civilians’ enjoy the show: NEWS FLASH!! Some of us are not actually idiots. There is a small but significant percentage of the television viewing audience who are truly offended by the rampant ‘Dumbing Down’ of American entertainment, and who genuinely enjoy a script which is not written for the lowest common denominator. Are you aware that ‘Friends’, ‘Cheers’, ‘That 70s Show’ and most other American programmes are deliberately written for an audience with a Grade 6 education? Whoa!
When a pro-science, pro-intelligence show like House comes along, we should rejoice! There should be more of its ilk, so those of us who can’t stand ‘Stupid TV’ have something more to watch than PBS.
Last point, I promise: Wasn’t it cool that Joel Gray’s character used the phrase “Ca ne change rien”, (that changes nothing) just before he killed the lab rat? How many programmes are there out there willing to toss in such dialogue? I love the fact that I had to think about it for a bit before remembering what it meant.
Thanks, Scott, for providing such an interesting and informative forum!!!
Cheers!
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Haha, you bring up some damn good points.
at first i thought he was a doctor, but after reading your disection of his posts, i believe you lol.
You are like House.
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Dr.D = phony.
Haha > dr. D
but…. Scott > haha > Dr.D
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I agree with I/?m Surrounded about the intelligence level. that’s one of the things that got me hooked on this show. I’m still in high school and I’m smart enough to understand what’s going. Well, not all of the medical jargon obviously. That’s why I came here. I really like the fact that this show really makes you think. Not only the medical stuff but those witty phrases that are sometimes very subtle but the most hilarious at the same same time. It’s fascinating.
The euthanasia topic bothered me. I was wondering why they didn’t just help him ease the pain. Or is that hard to do with a man in his condition? I don’t know. Does anyone have any idea why House said ‘I’m proud of you’ to Cameron. Did she help Powell die? If so, why would House be proud of her? Those were the questions that popped into my head the moment the episode was over.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:43 am
sara,
usually people who are terminal are not necessarily afraid of death but of pain.
there are many medical ways to manage pain so that the patient is not suffering.
i’m positive that even for prof.powell, there could have been a way to manage his meds so that he would not have pain before death (whenever that would be).
this is the same with the patients’ families who ask the doctor to give a lethal dose of morphine to their loved ones because they are afraid of the patient suffering. but as long as we can manage their pain, there is no reason to ‘kill’ anybody.
the world needs more palliative care physicians who can manage a patient’s pain and end-of-life questions without having to resort to homicide.
that’s my opinion.
so definitely, i am disappointed in cameron – she’s a teeter-totter of morals.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
What is the name of the calassical song in the start of the episode?
And thanks for a great site Scott :D
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
perpetual student,
While your finishing statement would appear true, it cannot be entirely so. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who claims to have good morals, like yourself, who clearly disagrees with her decision, could change at a moment’s notice. You can easily say your against euthanasian here on a forum and in a class room, and to friends, to family, to anyone, and you believe it. However, when your FACED with the decision of it, not just thinking about it, it is an entirely different story.
I know she’s just a character on a tv show, but SHE, not you, was faced with this problem, and only she can be the true judge of what is right and wrong, and she made her view. She changed it because she was faced with it, you have never been faced with that choice so in all truthness, you can’t really judge her choice.
Also, ehtuanasia is NOT homocide, otherwise there would be no need for the word euthanasia, the word would just be “helpfull homicide” or something. But, i’m sure if you became a vegetable for twenty years, and by some miracle of medicine you come back to reality to say only one sentence, then would become a vegetable for another 30 years, im sure your words wouldnt be “how about them nicks?”, it would probably be “end my terrible existence”
There comes a point where the human has the choice, the person (in this case cameron) is merely the guiding force, the instrument to his wishes. She made her choice because she was there, same with all the other doctors who do it, you have not.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
“Also, ehtuanasia is NOT homocide” …. apparently it is in the state of NJ. Regardless of one’s personal thoughts, one should also consider the law. Arguing the ethics involved won’t be much of a defense to the judge.
I don’t believe the “I’m just alleviating the pain” bit works in this case. The patient could be completely pain-free, yet still suffocate due to the fluids built up in his lungs. No amount of morphine in the world (except one that kills him faster) can overcome the “I can’t breathe”, although I supposed someone could be stoned enought to not care about it… that would be a groovy way to go.
Come to think of it, if I was certain to die in the next 48 hrs or so, I’d probably make sure all my affairs were in order and then hunt down some LSD. I bet the Make a Wish foundation wouldn’t help with that ….
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Haha,
I understand your comments. Yes, I haven’t been faced with ‘the’ situation yet.
And yes, it’s really not my position to judge anybody’s choices since I do believe that God is the ultimate judge. But I can’t help to feel disappointed in Cameron. I know she’s not perfect, as nobody is perfect, tv character or not. However, I definitely know that when I do face a similar situation in the future (which is almost certain) that I will do my utmost best to do anything but be an intentional instrument of death. In the human mind, sometimes there seems to be only one choice. However, there is always another choice.
Your example about the ‘vegetable’ patient does not make sense since the patient would not have know they were in a coma for so long. I do believe that a competent patient has the right to choose their medical treatment. However, this does not mean doctors have to help them in killing themselves. To prevent situations like the vegetable patient, everybody should have a living will where specific instructions are made in the event of tragedy. Don’t put the burden of choosing life/death to a family member or a doctor.
Haha, I’m glad you wrote your point of view. For any topic, controversial or not, people have to remember that there is really no ONE way. I wrote here to show my opinion and to hope that future doctors/residents do not have to feel like they can only help the patient by helping them die instead of other options.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Not my favorite episode. I thought the medicine was really weak and I’m not a doctor. However, I did three of my psych internships in hospitals. Here’s my question. Cameron is a fellow, House is the attending and supervising physician. What are the ethical, legal, and professional implications of Cameron, a fellow killing a patient for whose care she is not medically liable for? It was impossible for me to suspend disbelief on that one. Made absolutely no sense to me. Does Cuddy have to investigate given that the patient was fine at 2am and deceased at 2:30 am? Will there be an autopsy? Didi the patient need to put anything in writing beyond his statements to House and Cameron about wantng to die? Should these statements have been documented in the patient’s chart? Finally, would it have been possible to set the patient up with a self-controlled morphine (any drug really) drip so that he could take his own life when he was ready? I thought about this during the show and wondered if they didn’t go in that direction because it was already known (possibly documented) that he wanted to die? If Nurse Brenda was the last person to check on the patient would she be a subject of interest in the patent’s “untimely” death? Finally, how did Ezra know that House was the go-to- guy for ending one’s life?
I liked the Ali character; found the Cameron character excruciatingly annoying; found Cuddy’s second scene intriguing; and missed more on Chase and Foreman’s views on the subject. Overall I would give the medicine a D- and the soap opera a D+.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Hi
Not my favourite episode either, but i guess they can’t all be can they.
Not being a doctor I can’t really comment on the medical side of things, I did however think that subjecting a 75 year old man to stress test was a tad silly, also House’s big idea from seeing the girls thong a little far fetched, although i guess it a pretty cool “Housism”
From a soap opera point of view, i thought it was pretty good, a bit of drama never hurt anyone. I do hope that the clinic patients daughter was just a one hit wonder.
Also I dont know if I am reading into it too much, but does anyone think that they are going to rekindle the House /Cameron thing, after spending so much time on it in season 1 they cant just ignore it…………can they ?
Finally a thankyou to Scott for doing these reviews, I have only just found this site, and admit to being a little disappointed that I didn’t find it earlier, it’s quite interesting to see how medically accurate the show is.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Medical ethics is soap opera?
…maybe to those who only spend a couple of hours in their medical training discussing these sorts of things. Maybe also explains why hospital ethicists and physicians end up in conflict with one another.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Point of clarification – the euthanasia debate cannot be held when you use ad hominem attacks on those who are against it. Those of us, including doctors, who are against euthanasia have legitmate reasons. Life is indeed sacred and there is nothing wrong with holding a moral or religious view against the unjust taking of life. Comparing an animal’s life to a human’s is quite silly.
A non-religious thought: euthanasia presents serious legal problems and opens the door for the taking of life even when the patient does not have the ability to concede. In fact, PVS is not always as permanent as once believed. Who will be the judge on when it is appropriate to “relieve” the suffering and deem a person’s existence as not worthy?
(This debate also gets into aborting down syndrome babies – same concept – some life is not worthy of us according to some.)
Suffering is part of life. It does produce sadness and sorrow, but yet it also shows human frailty and the dependence on God. Suffering brings us closer to God and our mortality. Pope John Paul II suffered with dignity. I’m not claiming that it is easy, but I do not wish to have someone decide my life is worthless and end it prematurely.
It’s one thing to die naturally and refuse treatment, it’s quite another to commit suicide or murder.
(You may choose to respond by calling those who support this view religious fanatics, but then who is the extremist? Those who promote a culture of death with reckless abandon or those pause and question any taking of human life?)
September 25th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Active euthanasia refers to an action one takes to end a life, such as a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia refers to an omission, such as failing to intervene at a life-threatening crisis or failing to provide nourishment.
It is important not to confuse passive euthanasia with the morally legitimate decision to withhold medical treatment that is not morally necessary. Foregoing a treatment that we are not required to use is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by that name, even if death is hastened as a result.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:41 am
What about people who are unable to communicate?
People who cannot communicate are people. This gets to the heart of the problem. A person’s inability to function does not make his life less valuable. People do not become “vegetables.” Children of God never lose the divine image in which they were made.
A key distinction that needs to be made here is between a patient who is dying and one who is not. If the patient is dying, we try with all reasonable means to sustain life. Some interventions are necessary and some are not. But if the patient is not dying, there is no question about whether to provide treatment. There is such a thing as a useless treatment, but there is no such thing as a useless life.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:43 am
One more thing..
Must we always provide food and fluids to a patient?
When we come back from lunch, we do not say that we just had our latest medical treatment. Food and drink are a normal part of taking care of life and health, not an extraordinary intervention. As part of normal care, therefore, they are morally obligatory.
Food and water keeps us alive. Failing to feed someone introduces a new cause of death, namely, starvation.
Pope John Paul II addressed this question in the following words:
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering (Address to the International Congress on Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, March 20, 2004).
September 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Mike man,
Easy on the religious propganda, and mumbo jumbo. This isnt a jehova’s witness door to door sale. If your debating your point on euthanasian on a science website, don’t start speaking of the children of God… it makes your point less viable. It also excludes athiests, and people who do not believe in the same god as you.
You mentioned the pope, so i’ll assume your catholic.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Let me get this straight:
If we withhold necessary treatment/foods/fluids, we are NOT actively killing a patient… Are you serious??? To do so is to take an active participation in the demise of the patient. Are you any less guilty if you starve a patient than if you give them an overdose of a barbiturate or opiate? Either way, you have killed the patient, plain and simple.
Perhaps the real question is this:
What is more wrong, ethically speaking? 1) To end the life of a terminal patient who wants to die painlessly and quickly, or 2) to force one’s own religious dogma on the patient, forcing him to suffocate, starve, or die of dehydration.
By the way, it is not always possible to completely control pain, without depressing the respiratory and circulatory systems to dangerous levels. In other words, some pain cannot be managed. Given that fact, should patients still be forced to endure a painful death? Why? Does it somhow make them better people?? How???
Why is it invalid to compare humans with non-humans? The question was this: We euthanise our non-human family members if their condition is terminal, and if death is imminent and likely to be painful. Since we afford such respect to NON-humans, then WHY do we not afford the same respect to HUMANS? What is with this whole ‘life is sacred’ thing, anyway? A heartbeat, or waves on an EEG does not make something sacred. Inhuman suffering at the end of life does not qualify as sacred in any context. Cruel, yes; sacred, no. If a terminal patient has clearly expressed a desire to end their suffering, then it is our responsibility to help them.
The slippery slope arguement: Is clearly Bullsh*t. If it were actually a slippery slope, doctors would be killing people left, right and centre. I prefer to give our health care professionals a modicum of credit for their brains and compassion. Doctors have been euthanising patients since the profession began, not because they are monsters, but rather because they are compassionate and sympathetic.
The abortion comparison: If a woman elects to abort her first trimester fetus because it has a genetic or congenital defect that would result in a life of suffering for the infant, is that such a bad thing? Some people look upon it as murder. Others, myself included, look on it this way: Who am I to FORCE a life of pain and suffering on another human being? Who am I to force a child to endure severe disability, painful surgeries and possibly an early death? I would certainly not do that to another person, so I would consider it my responsibility to terminate such a pregnancy.
Questions of euthanasia and abortion are fraught with emotion, but it needn’t be that way. If we ‘check our preconceptions at the door’, and examine the real questions, it is often easy to see what needs to be done. We discuss the matter with the patient, if he is able, as well as with the family and medical team. Sometimes the question boils down to “What is the lesser of two evils?” The answer usually leaps out at us, one way or the other, when we approach the subject with open minds. Medical ethics are so much simpler when we examine the real-life issues, leaving religion out of the discussion. Just as I would never impose my atheism (if that’s even possible) on anyone, religionists must be careful to not impose their own beliefs upon the patient or their family.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Mike,
To compare disfavourably the respectful treatment of our pets with the way we force humans to suffer, is ’silly’? Is it really? Why?
We will perform the ultimate favour for our non-human family members, whilst forcing Grandpa to drown in his own phlegm. Talk about silly!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Why is it that evengelical religionists so often resort to calling the opposite opinion things like “a Culture of Death?” Would you find it offensive if atheists called religion “a Culture of Stupidity?”
Thought so. Funny how the religious are sometimes so less godly than their atheistic bretheren.
I submit to you, Mike, that atheists have far more respect for life than you do. Hear me out:
A religious physician won’t euthanise a patient because he fears for his own soul. It’s the old “I don’t want to go to hell” argument. He might say he won’t breach religious dogma about the taking of a life, but either way it’s the same argument; he doesn’t want to suffer the consequences.
An atheistic doctor on the other hand, does not let his own beliefs get in the way of a rational decision. Instead, he is motivated by what is in the best interests of the patient. He not only considers the life of the patient, but the QUALITY of that life. He respects the PERSON, not just the pulse.
Everyone with a modicum of common sense can see that occasionally, the taking of a life is far less evil than the prolonging of a death. At least some doctors don’t have to worry about eternal damnation when faced with the most difficult decisions.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Just like to say that it is awesome to see that a tv programme can cause such a heated debate.
In my opinion both sides have good and bad points to their argument, however i am more inclined to agree with mr surrounded. No one ever said that religoin was based on rationality, believing in a man in the sky that wathches everyone begs a few questions in itself, but letting a dying man/woman suffer a horrible painful death becausse your worried about the effect that your actions might have on your life, now that seems to me to be a bit selfis preservating and quite the opposite to what im led to believe about religion.
By the way “im Surrounded” great call with “Culture of stupidity”
September 25th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
What is very odd is that David Foster, who is actually the medical technical advisor (and so is himself a physician) seems to use the worst medicine of any of the show’s writers when he is actually writing an episode. Look at “DNR,” “TB or not TB,” “All In,” and now “Informed Consent.” Why does the one writer who actually is a doctor use the most inaccurate medicine?
By the way, I have gradually come to realize that the words “Informed” and “Consent,” when put together into one phrase, have the almost magical ability to almost instantly turn any message board or forum thread on the internet into a massive flame war. That and the related topic of euthanasia.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:45 am
In reference to your support of aborting fetuses that have some sort of defect (I had mentioned Down’s)
Who are you to judge the quality of the life that has yet to be born? Where do you draw the line? This is disgusting, I have work to do…
And please, let’s not resort to telling people to leave their values at the door when you wish to debate. One thing is very clear… I will not change your mind because we fundamentally disagree about the value of life. You can label me or create straw men to illustrate your points. It won’t change the fact that you are not honestly considering what I am saying about the subject. It’s easier to dismiss this or label it than to deal with it.
It’s pretty simple, we do not “own” our bodies or lives. Our society must always protect life and err on the side of caution. I believe that your extreme views are in the minority.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Who says that religious people are against euthanasia out of a concern for their own damnation? Have you considered that some people genuinely respect life and believe that are doing the altruistic and righteous this by not actively murdering a patient?
Another thing, Mike was not claiming that starvation was OK. Re-read the post; he is claiming that it is murder and that providing food and water are not medical treatments and therefore should never be withdrawn.
Religion combines faith and reason. I, too am Catholic and our faith teaches us that reason and faith are compatible (unlike Wahabi Islam or extreme fundamental Christians). And who are we to question God’s actions? He sent His only Son to die, yet somehow we should be spared any suffering by any means necessary?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Okay, that’s funny. A patient, any patient, should be forced to suffer because a character from Christian mythology was tortured to death on a cross??? How on Earth can that be justified, and what on Earth gives you the right?!?
What about other belief systems? What makes religionists so sure they’ve got the market cornered on truth? Is there a closed-circuit connection to God I don’t know about? What kind of supreme arrogance does it take for someone to think that he, personally, knows the Mind of God?
What if you’re wrong?
Here’s a nifty quote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Roberts)
According to scripture, the god of jews, xians and moslems had no big revulsion to killing. In fact, God’s chosen people were punished for NOT killing every man, woman and child in the cities of their enemies. Your god killed his own priests for the crime of not using the right incense. (Apparently, He didn’t like the scent) Your god killed every youngest child in every household in Egypt. Clearly, the bloodthirsty god of the bible, torah and koran is not anathema to murder, and even revelled in the deaths of many of his ‘children’. Is showing mercy to a patient ‘ungodly’, then?
No one, NO ONE, can say they have all the answers to life’s really tough questions. Therfore, when presented with issues like euthanasia, one MUST keep an open mind. If the patient is terminal, suffering, and wants to die, then we must ask ourselves “Why not?” What prevents us from doing this favour for the patient? Fear of reprisal from OUR god? Since we cannot possibly know the mind of God, we must do the next best thing: Act according to our own code of ethics. Do what is RIGHT.
Perhaps that means you cannot stomach actually performing euthanasia. Your responsibility to the patient would then be to find someone who can. That way, you have fulfilled your obligation, according to your religious dogma, but stopped short of forcing your beliefs upon the patient.
If someone says they have a ‘genuine respect for life’, but would routinely force other human beings to suffer, how is that respect? Whose life are you respecting? Does the patient attain some greater reward, somehow, if they suffer horribly before they die? Are there different ‘layers’ of heaven? What if the patient is atheistic, or jewish, or buddhist, or muslim, or hindu? According to Xian scripture, such a person will burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity anyway. What favour are you doing such a patient by making them suffer before they die?
There is a vast difference between the generic, religious, so-called ‘respect for life’ and a real, sincere, honest respect for the life of another human being. One of them respects the life of the patient. The other respects only the fact the patient is still technically alive.
Where do we draw the line, you want to know? Who am I to ‘judge the quality of the life that has yet to be born’?
Who, sir, are YOU to judge what is sufficient quality of life? Who are YOU to force pain and suffering on another human being? Who are YOU to say that merely having a pulse is somehow sacred?
Who am I? I am a simple atheist, living each day knowing that ‘this is not simply a dress rehearsal’; trying to leave this planet a better place for having been on it. I am not motivated by a greedy need to attain paradise, to look godly to my fellows, or to blindly follow the directions of a popular mythology. Rather, I am motivated by a need to be a net benefit to humanity; by a need to seize every opportunity to help my fellow creature without hesitation. -To do what’s right, even if it is tremendously difficult.
Your god would have me burn in hell for all eternity for that. Curious, n’est pas?
IloveCameron: Thank you.
-
September 26th, 2006 at 11:31 am
If we don’t “own” our bodies, who does? No, I really want to know, because I’d like some warranty work done… Or a refund…
Whom do I talk to about all these manufacturer’s defects??
September 26th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Sounds to me like Dr.Joe and Mike should get a roomo together…oh wait, your religion hates homosexuals. Your religion hates everything out of the norm don’t they.
Respecting life and euthanasia go hand in hand. If you respect their life, you respect the person, can you sit there and watch as they suffer in pain? Oh, and go figure dr.Joe, a catholic, accuses other religions like islams of having no reason. Your just in with the propganda. Who are you to judge another religion ?
Oh, and heres a paradox for you. You say ‘who are we to judge god’s actions’. Well, you religious folks also believe that everything happens for a reason, God is everywhere, if someone dies, its because God wanted it to happen. So then, since God can’t come down from the sky and pull the life support of someone, how do you know, that the person performing the euthanasia isn’t an instrument to his will. Who are you to question the way God works if you so adamantly believe he is the true savior. If someone does an act like euthanasia, in your eyes, it should be because God wanted it to happen. Or are you hypocritical.
So make up your mind boys. Can’t have both sides.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
To whoever said they can’t see Chase in seminary:
Why? Because he’s Australian and wealthy? Or because he’s got some morality issues? If it’s the latter, than my explanation may give you insight into why. Ever heard of Hitler? Started out as a Catholic schoolboy. People who spend a lot of time in religious atmospheres that they come to disagree with tend to become the most rebellious people. Chase saw his morals crash, too.
From personal experience, changing one’s mind about rigorous structure tends to free a person more than a well-adjusted person is naturally freed. After I stopped being so religious and started being more spiritual, I became very rebellious. I’m able to point it out so easily because I believe it’s okay. My morals are still rather set in my mind, though, so I’m not quite so Chase-like.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Ok, I never comment here… I just wanted to make sure that non-religious people here realise that there are some of us that are intelligent. I, in fact, am Catholic, but I believe that abortion is a choice, the death penalty is important, and euthanasia can be a blessing. As Joe said (though apparently failed to understand), science and Catholicism are supposed to go hand in hand, helping and supporting each other.
Abortion is a choice. It is no one’s place to force their beliefs on other people. People who do not believe that a fetus is a life shouldn’t be refused the right to abort just because others believe it is. This is why abortion is only allowed in the first trimester, because the fetus is not alive yet.
Euthanasia, as I said, can be a blessing, for both the person suffering, and that person’s loved ones (who, obviously, would not want to see him/her suffering). It is not always possible to alleviate pain. Would you rather the patient who wished to be euthanised have to painfully suffer through death? Are you really that cruel?
“I’m Surrounded” was saying that medicine should be free from religious beliefs. This is true. Science and medicine view life and all things intertwined with it objectively. No good health care professional or true scientist lets his or her beliefs get in the way of the facts when solving a problem. (And “I’m Surrounded,” good call with the ’stupidity’ comment. You have no idea how much ‘relgionists’, as you put it, and every-day people sadden me with their stupidity. Heh, aren’t teenagers supposed to have a more optimistic view of the world?)
I also want to point out that Chase (the religious one of the group) agreed with euthanasia. He supported Ezra’s right to euthanasia; he also seemed offended when House brought Ezra back to life. Chase believed it was right to respect someone’s wishes, and probably (though, truthfully, I am just guessing here) believes that God would have no qualms about it. Because his god (the one in whom I believe) is one of mercy, compassion, and respect. Not cruelty. God does not want anyone to suffer pointlessly, why should He? Better question (for Joe and Mike): Why would you believe in such a cruel god?
September 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Haha,
it seems like a lot of your reasoning is from many general assumptions you have of any religion.
stop slamming other people’s beliefs in order to prove yours as true.
there is a way to have a civil discussion without making it into a hateful argument and inserting facetious comments.
to the people who are still reading this thread:
controversial topics can bring on heated debates but it doesn’t mean you win just because you get the other side to believe you. you win when you can get the other side to understand your position and to know that there are many opinions other there.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
[...] The PoliteDissent medical review of this episode [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Perpetual student,
They are the ones slamming others beliefs, or did you skim right by that when you read every OTHER word. That wasn’t that hateful. But i think the reason you even brought it up is because you have nothing else to say. You are against euthanasia as you previously stated, therefore my comments may have whipped you.
Thats fine. Im okay with that. I happen to know alot about other religions, especially the catholic faith.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Devi: A Freethinking Catholic! Good for you! (and good luck!) Nice post, by the way.
Perpetual Student: I thought Haha brought up a very good point. How do religionists know if someone is, or is not, actually acting as an ‘agent of god’ when they euthanise a patient?
There’s a tired old joke about the shipwrecked man who prays to god to rescue him. After refusing help from a fishing boat, a freighter and the coast guard, citing his belief that god will save him, the man finally dies. When he asks god why he was left to die, god says “I sent a fishing boat, a freighter and the cost guard. What more did you want?!?”
Similarly, perhaps euthanasia could be rationalised by religionists as ‘God’s will’. The rest of us will probably just stick to doing the right thing for its own sake, though.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
I Just realized that the writers screwed up when testing for nerve potentials. Notice that in the scene where house tests ezra for nerve potentials, he got his wording wrong….he said that the right leg had lost sensation…it was the right leg that didn’t move, not the left.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
oops..now i screwed up…House said that there was no sensation in the LEFT leg….but there was..there was NO sensation in the the RIGHT leg and there WAS sensation in the left
September 28th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
God is the ultimate determiner of life, he is the spectacle of greatness in this world. He created the earth in 7 days, and anyone who doesnt believe it is a blashphemer and deserves to burn in hell. HIs holy scripture the bible is the true laws of the earth. respect them and live by them. He is our savior, and jesus died for mankind.
the catholic religion is the one true religion. Euthanasia will damn your soul, and the person your euthanising *(if they say yes to it). Anyone who disagrees is a blashphemer to god, and will burn in the fires of the hell beneath us.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Well, HALLELUJAH!!!! …Now pass the morphine…
I guess I’m going to burn in the fires of hell beneath you, Mike my dear brother!
I’ll be in good company, though. I’ll be there with other freethinking humanitarians, altruistic scientists, medical researchers and just generally nice people, so I’ll feel right at home.
Do you really think your god burns people forever in the lake of fire, just because they showed mercy to a fellow human being? Does your god really punish good and caring people with eternal torture and mysery, just because they don’t believe in him?
Why are you so angry? Does this discussion shake your foundation, just a teensy little bit? Methinks thou dost protest too much, Mike. Some real insecurity is peeking through your rhetoric. Is your faith so uncertain, so vulnerable, that you cannot partake in an openminded discussion concerning the value of life without hitting the panic button?
Worry not, dear friend. If what you say is true, then your salvation is assured. If there is no god, then you may have wasted your time and energy persuing a non-existent god’s favour. Either way, how can it possibly harm you to broaden your horizons a little? Can you not see that it is possible, in such a complex universe as ours, that a matter of mercy could have more than one interpretation? – More than one right and ethical solution? Can you not see that sometimes, tragically, life is worse than death?
Or is even considering that possibility a mortal sin?
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:02 am
how about we have this discussion via msn my dear friend. Ill rock your athiest world with the lord by my side in a debate of the century. You’ll lose so bad that youll euthanize yourself to the hell where you belong you blasphemous fiend of the devil.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Greetings, Mike.
Thank you ever so much for your very kind offer to continue this discussion on msn. I must admit I am sorely tempted any time someone offers to ‘rock my world’, but perhaps we have disparate mental images of such an occurence…
As far as your proposed ‘Debate of the Century’ is concerned, I have two questions:
First, this is a perfectly good forum, (and Scott has been kind enough to indulge us) for a healthy discussion of issues brought up on this episode of “House MD”, so why relocate?
Second, thus far you haven’t answered a single question I have posed. One wonders what you mean by ‘debate’, since you have only proselytised, not debated. This leads me to wonder if perhaps you have found yourself in unfamiliar territory. Have you brought a knife to a gunfight, perchance?
In the spirit of friendly debate, I have asked the questions all freethinking individuals ask about quality of life, self-determination, euthanasia and mercy. You have had plenty of opportunity to debate the issues and make points of your own. Instead, you have simply resorted to the rantings of a fanatic. I seriously doubt that given another forum, like msn, you would suddenly take part in a serious discussion, let alone without resorting to threats of eternal damnation and fiendish insults.
“…with the lord by my side…” (sic) indeed. Has the Lord been holding out on you until now, then?
You have now publicly wished for my death and eternal suffering. Ah, religious observance is such a fickle thing, isn’t it? Don’t worry, I forgive you. I do, however, seriously urge you to seek counsel about your anger. Wishing people dead and burning in the lake of fire is not exactly the hallmark of a healthy mind.
Please get some help, Mike.
Respectfully,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood ‘Blasphemous Fiend of the Devil’
October 5th, 2006 at 9:38 am
I will not allow the Lord to be so reffered! He is the HOLY figure of this world! THe greatest thing on the planet, the world, the universe, the entire UNIVERSE past present, future, EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING! Why are you here!? but to be an insignificant blasphemer!? You are here for a purpose, whether that purpose is to annoy the bajeebus outta me, I dont know.
Lord help me! Lord help me remove this ‘gnarled verbal maggot breeder of sinners’, from my life! LORDDDDD!!
I cannot allow myself to question the eternal holiness that is the lord for why you are so annoying to me and my existence. I cannot allow it, if you must continue to harm the Lord, then it has to be for a reason, but what is that reason? I dont know, but he does! He does damn you.
WHy do you hate the lord so much, what did he do to you? Why do you continue to desire to be a ‘religious mutilator of perpetual burnings in the fires’, embrace your doom, dont flaunt it! You are being a ’sin factory of corruption and decay’ and worst of all, you are a mangled, toothless, blind, deaf man in the world of colors and divinity. You cannot see his holiness. Why? WHY!? WHYYY!!
See it, breath it, live it love it, like me. I dream of the lord and jesus, and i see him tell me things. Thank you lord and jesus for everything. Spare me!
October 5th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
To whoever owns the previously-posting sockpuppet, the Catholic Church is not a creationist sect.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Okay, Mike.
Breathe deeply. Relax. Good. Consult your physician about your blood pressure.
If your god is so ready to smite me, then surely you can put it in his capable hands. It is time for you to stop waging a mighty holy war against little old me. Your god should be able to handle me without your help, don’t you think? After all, he’s omnipotent, right? You can gracefully step aside now and let him take over, confident that I’ll be punished for all eternity for my blasphemous and heretical ways.
In the meantime, you can have a nice, hot bath and a restorative glass of red wine. Ask your lovely wife to rub your feet. You need to engage in some serious, industrial-strength relaxation before you rupture a blood vessel somewhere, Mike.
Seriously.
I’m probably not the only one here worried about this public display of raging hatred and what it implies about your mental and physical health. You need to talk to your GP, Mike, before your anger manifests itself as a serious physical problem.
This kind of vehement indignation is not healthy, and it’s not normal, Mike. Get help. Do it now.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighbourhood “Gnarled verbal maggot breeder of sinners”*
*Did I get that right?
October 13th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I’m seriously considering having a tee-shirt made for myself, sporting one of Mike’s lovely turns of phrase on the front.
Now I just have to decide between “Sin factory of corruption and decay”, and “Gnarled verbal maggot breeder of sinners.”
Hmmm.. Decisions, decisions…
October 19th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I am back. Do not think I ran away in fear, for I did not. For one, my friend, I do not have a wife; women are feeble insignificant weak-willed creatures of intolerance.
Just because you are a ‘desecrator of moral views’ and have a ‘discombobulated patch of a pitiful personality’ that matches your anti religious words, does not make me a bad man.
I love the lord and he loves me. He clearly does not love you, because you are a tool of the devil my friend. You are just an ‘adherent lucifer, bootlicking, flunky flatterer, of the archfiend himself’ you have yourself become a ‘hellion-goblin, roguely lickspittle!”
I rest my case. Fiend.
October 21st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Fantastic!!
Thanks, Mike, well done! That was one of your funniest posts ever! Truly hilarious.
“…discombobulated patch of a pitiful personality” Oh, my sides!! –And just when I had recovered from that one, your “…adherent lucifer, bootlicking, flunky flatterer…” [sic] had me rolling on the floor again!
Now, of course, I know what you’re up to. True, it took a while for the truth to dawn, since I initially thought we were having a serious discussion here, but it is clear now that you’re having as much fun with this as I am. No one could write phrases like “…hellion-goblin, roguely lickspittle” with a straight face. You must have been laughing yourself silly when you came up with all those wonderfully catchy phrases.
So the jig is up, Mike. What finally made me figure it out? You pushed your phraseology off course with the “…women are feeble insignificant weak-willed creatures of intolerance” [sic] statement. Misogyny hasn’t been your style until now. That’s what made it clear that you really aren’t what you claim to be. My son picked up on it immediately. He said you are most likely an atheist, having a little fun on a public forum by making religious fundamentalists look even more ridiculous than they already do. I’m inclined to agree. You did a great job of it, by the way, a really great job. Nothing I could write would make rabid religionists look as mind-bogglingly silly as you have done so artfully yourself.
Congratulations then, for having fooled me so well for such a long time, Mike. You did a brilliant impersonation of a religious lunatic, right up until you went a little over the top with the misogyny thing. Really had me going, you did.
I have enjoyed this whole exchange very much. I hope you have found it as entertaining and funny as I have. It has provided me, and I hope others, with laughter in abundance.
Thanks again, Mike.
Your Fiend,
the Desecrator of Moral Views.
October 21st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Why do I feel like I’ve just had an arguement with ‘Marvin the Martian’??
“Ooohhh, you make me sooo angry!! Now, I will have to discombobulate you with my Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator!”
October 24th, 2006 at 3:09 am
Interesting debate, until the last few postings anyway. I’ve worked in palliative care and subcutaneous morphine is a perfectly good choice for terminal breathlessness, in addition to pain control. In palliative care the idea is to treat the person’s symptoms and alleviate their suffering. So have I given some people too much morphine? It’s possible; I’ll never know because there is NO dose limit. We simply give the medication in the ordered dose and frequency until the patient feels relief from symptoms. Sometimes this speeds up their death, but the alternative is to not treat their symptoms and let them suffer, just so they can maybe die a few hours later. I have to say though that whenever we can we honour the person’s wishes. If they don’t want to suffer, we give them what they need. If they prefer to stay awake and clear headed, we honour that too, but it doesn’t happen very often. Most people fear death itself far less than dying miserably.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Hahahah, yes. You have finally figured out the sharade. However, that is only half. There is truly more to the story then what lies on the surface.
About the mysogeny thing, I was actually watching a tv show, and the host of the show was some priest of sorts, but he was insulting women for being the seed of evil, and that Eve corrupted Adam and what not, so I felt like adding that in.
Thanks for the compliments on my catch phrases, I did have a good time writing them Haha.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:17 am
The devil is in the details.
Well, I won’t be damned.
This is not Wittengenstein. He was.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Nice, Richard, albeit rather obscure.
If this is Wittgenstein, it is the ‘Tractatus on Acid.’
November 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I am not commenting on a specific episode. I’m commenting on a specific procedure. I and my friends with epilepsy
have all wondered where you get your information on the way to react when you see someone having a seizure. Frankly,
the doctors on House need to go back to med-school to relearn this one. Holding someone down is definitly not the
correct way. You could hurt someone doing that. If you’re thinking to youreslf that it’s just a TV show and nobody
gets hurt, you’re wrong. If a passer-by saw someone having a seizure and remembers the way they saw it done on “House” they would immediately drop and hold them down. The victim of the seizure would be harmed by this reaction and the rescuer would be covered with bruises. Your victim, unable to pay his medical bills from his injuries, would sue the show and it’s prducers. The well-meaning rescuer would be upset with you for giving him wrong information. You really should check with a doctor before writing the wrong information on a script. People see it on a hospital show and
think it’s the correct procedure. I would like it if you began to have your doctors follow the way things are supposed to be. If I’m the one that sues, I would demand a public apology and have the person apologizing give the correct reaction to the seizure. The correct thing to do is put a pillow under the victims head and get any dangerous items
out of reach of the arms and legs so that he isn’t injured by them. Never put anything in the mouth of a seizure
victim. If it’s too hard, he could break his teeth or jaw. If it’s too soft he may bite it off and choke on it.
November is epilepsy awareness month. I wouldn’t want to be the one having a seizure after someone watched house. I enjoy the show. It’s great. It’s just wrong to hold someone down that’s having a seizure. Ask a nuerologist what he
thinks of the way you have been showing it. Please get it right. There are about 2 million people in America with epilepsy. Would you want all of us to stop watching the show?
December 20th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Um, timidly responding to Rebecca V, I thought that the point of holding a seizure patient down was to be able to stick an injection needles in without damaging nerves and vessels. Obviously that’s only done in the hospital. However, why they so often ignore good open IV sites and has to do a direct infection is beyond me. You can’t have that many medicine incompatibilities — and IV mostly mal Saline anyways.
December 30th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I was horrified by this episode…I agree that the medicine was very bad and *what happened to the palliative care* that could and should have been provided- it was like stepping back 50 years…
I cannot understand why Hugh Laurie would act this out as it seems by doing so he is condoning this attitude of physician assisted killing, especially in the face of not providing good palliative care first which even Lord Joffy advocated recently on debating the bill for physician assisted killing in 2006 in England.
Surely the characters should have given the other option of palliative care. The use of morphine in the way outlined in the programme will have done damage to the work that has been painstakingly done in reassuring the public of it’s safety in the right doses and with the right intentions. The worldwide public have an incorrect belief that morphine is only given ‘in the terminal phase or will kill them off’
March 30th, 2007 at 1:44 am
I believe that the purpose of medicine is to relieve the pain. Sometimes, you have to cause some pain in order to achieve this goal. Other times (terminal diseases) you just have to make the patient comfortable. I’m in favor of terminal sedation, but I’m against outright euthanasia. If euthanasia were legal, one could question in which cases it could be considered right. Who would decide? The same problem happens with abortion. When does life start? Everybody has a different answer. Who knows for sure? I sure don’t know. When in doubt I believe we should be cautious, right? After all, we’re talking about taking lives…
April 21st, 2007 at 6:09 am
MLB, you really need to read Mein Kampf again, or visit http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml for the spoilers.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
As for holding someone down, I find Cameron and Foreman put it best in one episode:
C : “Hold him down.”
F : “I’ll break his arm!”
C : “This is a hospital, we’ll fix it.”
I assume causing some potential damage is less of a risk than not providing medication or allowed IV lines to get tangled around them, etc.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
H’mm… I didn’t notice any of you medical posters noting that the patient was “one of your own,” a highly respected doctor. It must have made all of them, even House, respect Powell’s decision not to live. After all, he was as informed as any human could be. They could even see themselves in his situation someday. That made it different from the usual euthanasia story line. When the doctor is a patient….
February 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I was surprised to note that the director of the episode is Laura Innes, Weaver of ER.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I think it is clear that Cameron administered the fatal dose of morphine but what everyone seems to have missed is that she was angry. No, beyond angry at this ‘respected physician’ (twit) and his past experiments. This wasn’t assisted suicide or terminal sedation, it was murder. That’s the reason for the tears in the chapel and IMHO House’s pride in her action. I think he was angry too.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Is it just me or when the colonoscopy was being done, did Chase just say that he was moving from the Sigmoid colon into the Ascending colon? If so, where did the descending colon and transverse colon between them disappear to? As a 1st yr med student who hasn’t done abdomenal anatomy yet, except a brief 1 hour overview for a colorectal cancer module I did, I know that there is no way to move from the sigmoid straight to the ascending.
It’s too long after the episode to expect a reply but thought I’d comment anyway.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I can tell you that doctors of great diagnostic skill exist. I am the son of one. My dad has a gift for figuring out what is wrong with people. He’s not House but he’s far better than the average doctor at it and has literally saved several lives (including my cousin’s) by correctly diagnosing problems that were missed by other doctors.
My dad also told me he studied under a doctor who was considered a world-class diagnostician…better than my dad. My dad says it is all about asking the right questions and having the right mindset to problem-solve and putting it all together. It takes more than knowledge.
It is also worth noting that my dad says that no hospital in this country (USA) would keep a doctor on staff who is addicted to painkillers like House…no matter how good they are. He says similar things to Dr. Scott here about the medicine used in House, MD. A lot of it is inaccurate. He prefers CSI though he does note that they mispronounce medical terms at times.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
For those who are keeping score, this episode makes House (the show, not the character) 2 for 2 in terms of being “pro-life”… with the two “pro-life” episodes, in my opinion, being Sports Medicine and Babies & Bathwater from Season 1 and the two “not pro-life” episodes being Kids from Season 1 and this one, Informed Consent, from Season 3 (because of the assisted suicide which I presume was performd by Cameron).
November 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I was disappointed in Chase too… sure his dad pressured him to leave seminary to become a doctor but he still seems like he held onto his faith. I remember a conversation he had with a patient about God in one episode and the prayer he said before he performed an autopsy on a baby he couldn’t save.
For those just catching up on this episode, I think Mike and Dr. Joe’s comments above from Sept 25 and 26, 2006 are the most helpful. They could have really made a good argument had Mike not started joking around with the caricature of Christianity posts
December 17th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I was actually quite appalled at Dr. Powell’s total disregard for his own health when he was dissecting the lab rats. Sure, they’re all supposed to be clean and uninfected, but he should’ve at least worn a face shield in case he gets gore in his face, and he definitely should NOT have adjusted his glasses after dissecting a rat.
And as a physician himself, I’m sure he would have realised that he was entering respiratory arrest before the point of actually collapsing on the ground like that.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:47 am
Two major flaws:
1. Morphine is not an anaesthetic agent. To maintain a patient in general anaesthesia (especially a gravely ill elderly patient) requires specialized expertise and constant monitoring, not a one-time dosing of an opiate.
2. Surely Dr. Powell had more than enough chemicals in his research lab to painlessly terminate his own life? The show began with him euthanizing a rat, and even while ill, he had sufficient motor function to administer a dose to himself. He wasn’t dependent on House for this (later on they refused to discharge him, though even then it seems unlikely no one of his family, friends, colleagues or acquaintances would agree to fetch for him some vial from his lab).
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Well well well, I just had a second look at this episode (it just aired again on SHOWCASE) and I know why Powell died so quickly.
No, it wasn’t House.
No, it wasn’t Chase.
No, it wasn’t Foreman.
It was Cameron. And that’s why House was proud of her.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:07 am
On the topic of withholding treatment… (for those of you who were “disappointed” in Cameron)
- I suffer from severe migraines. Often, the strongest pain killers do not touch the level of pain that I experience. The pain is enough to confuse me into thinking that I am suicidal… in my case, it really is a confusion, because I just want to be out of pain, and for me, the pain WILL eventually cease without medication and on its own (even if it takes days or weeks). Severe pain is unlike anything I can describe. In the moment, self-harm and suicide seem like nothing compared to the extreme torture of severe pain. For sufferers of acute severe pain, it is important that they are always “safe” during times of severe pain, as they are at extreme risk of suicide… severe pain IS torture. Imagine the worst possible physical things that could be done to you, and you will not come close to truly being able to empathize with severe pain unless you have felt such pain yourself.
- Knowing what severe pain is like, I can empathize with those who ARE in fatal situations who do not have much time left and do not have any hope of a cure or successful treatment left. And, like I said before… those of us who suffer from moderate to severe pain on an acute or chronic basis have a hard enough time trying to manage our pain, trying to find any sort of medication that will even take the edge off our pain, so that we can live any sort of a normal life… so for those who are actually being tortured to death, because that IS what is happened, they ARE being tortured to death, no, pain medication is not the answer. And yes, you CAN keep giving them morphine. You can keep giving them more and more morphine to try and stop their pain so that they can maybe, just maybe, not suffer while they die… and if you are suggesting that pain killers are the answer, well then this was the answer in that House episode, and the answer so often used in real life as well… in fact, often times, it’s not even intentional, no one is actively trying to “euthanize” anyone, they are just trying to keep the patient out of pain with morphine…
- So yeah… I just want to make it clear that it’s not a simple case of “why can’t they just keep the patient out of pain until he dies?” … because, it does not work that way at all. If there was a pain killer that could actually kill severe pain… I would be able to get my life back. Instead, I get to spend about 1/3 of my life being physically tortured in the most extreme way imaginable. But, I can deal with that because of a key word in the last sentence: “my life”. If for some reason a severe migraine hit that was different from the others, and it turned out to be caused by an inoperable brain tumor that didn’t respond to radiation… I would fight as long as the doctors told me I had even the slightest, the smallest probability of beating it… but, after that, I’d like to tell you that I’d hold onto life even while I was being brutally tortured and even though I knew the torture would continue until the moment that I died… I couldn’t say for sure that I would hold on until my last natural breath, because I am not in that head-place right now, and hopefully I never will be, and also I know what it feels like to want to escape severe pain because the torture is so brutal and so extreme. And if ANYONE tried to force me to continue living for weeks, days or even minutes in that state of constant physical torture… in my opinion, they would be as guilty for my horrendous pain as those who have personally tortured others are guilty of torture. Now, that is not to say that I would ever expect anyone to assist me in hurrying up my own death… but I would expect doctors to do everything they could to make sure that I was not in pain, including giving me as much morphine as I needed so that I could pass away peacefully as opposed to violently.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ezra Powell should have assistants who perform experiments. Not him. He should have stopped active study years ago.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
So in Cameronland, it’s ok for her to murder an innocent research scientist, but the most unforgivable thing ever for Chase to murder a genocidal dictator! Talk about being two-faced.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
@tardik: Maybe Ezra Powell just likes performing experiments. The Principal of my elementary school oversaw lunch time personally because she took pleasure in making sure we were all getting at least one healthy meal, not because she didn’t have teachers and lunch ladies who would have done it for her.
Leave a Reply
Contact Me
About
Subscribe:
The Best Of...
Special Topics
Archives
Categories
Twitter
Comic Blogs
Medical/Science Blogs
Currently Reading
Arbitrarily Interesting Medical Condition
Syndrome
The Net:
Contents may have settled during shipping. Past results are no guarantee of future performance. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Void where prohibited by law. All rights reserved. Not valid with other offers or specials. Professional driver on a closed track. Your financial institution may impose other fees. All models are over 18 years of age. Employees must wash hands before returning to work. Results not typical. Many suitcases look alike. 18% gratuity added to tables of six or more.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
© 2004-2010 Polite Dissent. Powered by WordPress