“Dibala had some significant bleeding in his lungs just a day or two before — is using streptokinase really a good idea?

and

You’d think they’d use a newer thrombolytic at a cutting edge hospital like Princeton-Plainsboro”

Maybe that’s why chase used the older thrombolytic? He used a medication that’s probably less effective because he didn’t want to use the show’s past combination of heparin and warfarin? I guess the writers only draw on a small amount of what their consultant doctors tell them about the medical field and have to improvise with old material like this.

Did you notice the stock voice clip? When he’s talking to Chase about his son he says (paraphrasing) “[on CU of Dibala] My son, won’t even speak to me anymore. [Chase OTS] My son, [back to Dibala] has heard so much bad stuff etc. etc.” The 2nd time he says “my son” is a direct voice clip from Star Wars.

Let me ask you this: is there ever rationalization for murder, is it ever justified? Would killing Hitler after he kills the Jews, and is prepared to kill more, moral? If so, what’s the justification: for revenge, or are we killing him so he doesn’t kill any more Jews? If it’s so he doesn’t kill more Jews, it’s the exact same justification as killing Dibala. The only difference is, with Hitler, there’s already a body count. So is it only morally justified to kill someone only after there are millions of dead people to account for it?

What’s the difference between a hero and a “sociopath murderer” in your eyes, then? It’s easy to say that the person who kills Hitler after millions are dead is a hero. But, if Chase kills Dibala BEFORE the genocide occurs, before the people are murdered, he’s a sociopath? Why is it only morally justified after the “evil person” has committed genocide?

The difference between the two actions, killing Dibala before genocide and killing Dibala after genocide, is that one is precautionary and the other is reactionary. It’s a precaution to kill him prior to the genocide, in order to stop him from killing people. If it’s after the genocide, it’s in reaction to his actions and to stop him from continuing his actions. Why should one be evil and the other be OK?

What I’m getting at is this: I’ve seen a few posts that place emphasis on the fact that Chase DID NOT know that Dibala would kill people, because it had not happened yet. Apparently, Chase did not act morally because Dibala did not commit genocide yet, and thus, it was murder. However, I disagree: why must we wait for the death of many to justify the death of the murderer? Why should we only kill him if he already killed others?

I think what Chase’s murderous act really brought to the surface was his subconscious worship of personal conviction. Chase is a Nietzsche Ubermensch fanboy. It probably originated with his father issues. Father knew his marriage was bulls**t, he wasn’t going to waste time on it. Father found his medical work of most significant value, so he wasn’t going to waste time on his kid. Father provided for Chase’s upbringing. You can’t accuse his father of being financially or legally negligent or actively emotionally abusive. Chase looked out as best he could as a child for his alcoholic mother, but he knew deep down inside he wished he could be a bastard like his dad. (Or in other words, had the internal strength to act upon his personal convictions the way his dad did.) He probably went straight for the seminary as an adolescent rebellion for what his father represented. And then (I conjecture) he got sick of the religious BS, and realized he could still go into medicine, be that constructive idealist, and not be an asshole like his dad. (Think of the Foreman/House conflict of season 3-4.)

And then fell into House’s orbit, the paragon of medical ubermensch. House doesn’t spew hypocrisies left and right in order to do his job. House doesn’t compromise his principles. House will always go for the jugular to accomplish what he believes needs to be done, and not cover it up with human niceties and rationalizations. House does not follow arbitrary rules which compromise his principles. House is the Ubermensch. House ends up being the model of Chase’s hero worship.

So for the first three seasons, you see medical wunderkind Chase, fumbling through his development as a doctor, in order to be his version of House. Probably Chase’s greatest weakness in this period is his lack of self-confidence, which prevents his actualization as medical ubermensch. Finally House has to fire him, because besides House’s unstable whims and internal chaos, House realizes Chase cannot develop any further while working for him. Chase comes to realize that himself as he becomes chief surgical (resident?/attendant?) That’s why Chase has no particular compulsion to go back to Diagnostics or work for House. That internal chapter of his life is done, closed. (I don’t quite understand why the writers aren’t moving him towards research or academia, like his dad.) Chase never had the desire to usurp his role model.

This episode is a crossroad for Chase. He is confronted with a moral dilemma embodied by Dibara. (And no one here comments on the marvelous performance by James Earl Jones! Did he do it for the money, the acting role, or is he another House fanboy? The cast must have gotten a real charge acting alongside him.) Dibara is a dictatorial sociopath, but there are quite a few of them running things on the planet. Chase does start out operating on his ethical methodology (treat the patient, don’t judge or let it interfere with treatment), Chase makes a point of listening to Dibala’s side of the story, not blindly accepting mob/political propaganda as truth. But then Dibala menaces his wife, and then goes “Iceman Cometh” on the both of them.

Chase is confronted with Ubermensch perspective. To say you believe in something, and yet not morally act upon that conviction, just make you a coward; a weak, hypocritical person. Chattel for the slaughter, insignificant, someone merely taking up space. And Chase lives to be that Ubermensch, someone beyond that rationalizing, ethically craven hypocrites most people are. Its pretty apparent, even after bending over backwards to see Dibala’s side of things, that Dibala is paranoid, ruthless, and he will act upon his insecurities upon a whole tribe of people if he survives. Is Chase another sheep who will indirectly help Dibala perpetrate another mass slaughter? So Chase decides the world is better off if Dibala is dead, and Chase prefers to do it without suffering the legal, professional, or interpersonal consequences.

Chase’s deception was murder: the premeditated decision to end another person’s life against their wishes. One legal/ethical defense for such an act is self-defense, but it is apparent here that an extremely ill old man had little ability or inclination to credibly threaten either Chase’s life or Cameron’s.

So what is the rationalization for the act? “I would save more lives by murdering one specific life.” Here are some hypothetical thought experiments to contrast with that precept.

Morality by the numbers: Is it okay to kill one life, if you know it will save two lives? Does it become more justified if its 100 lives saved? But what if those 100 lives saved were serial killers? (Is Dexter a moral man? Are you?) Everyone likes bringing up killing Hitler, but what if it was only killing Typhoid Mary? You could save thousands of lives that way too.

Instead of killing Hitler, why not kill Josef Stalin? There is little doubt that Stalin killed WAY more people than Hitler ever did (Stalin had a decade head start). Of course, then it would have been more likely that Hitler would have succeeded in collapsing the USSR. But hey, more lives saved. Is it still moral to kill Winston Churchill? If he died before assuming power, it would have been more likely England would have had a negotiated peace with Hitler, saving many English and American lives. (Hitler being victorious over the USSR only results in the same amount of lives taken on the Eastern Front anyway, its “morally” equivalent. Saved English and American lives is an undeniable net savings in life.)

Morality by rationalization: If you can conclude the life you killed was an “evil” life, and you knew you could save two lives in the process, then are you acting in a moral fashion when murdering alleged evil person? What if that person was only “kinda” evil, like a person who thought they had a right to murder someone in order to save more lives?

Saving lives with pre-emptive murder: I know such and such hates my people, and their parents are known to have murdered innocent people. If I kill them all now, then I am assured they won’t grow up or change their mind and murder people I cherish. Question: Am I Hitler, Arafat, Netanyahu, Osama bin Laden, or Dick Cheney? Or am I that Dibala guy?

Thank God Dibala was right about you people. Full of moral conviction but too weak and cowardly to live up to them.

If you slavishly adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, at least you can be certain that *you* are not taking lives in a sociopathic manner. (And my apologies for regurgitating some of the previous arguments. Something about the presentation I found lacking…)