Whether the recording is “legal” and whether it is admissible in court are two different issues. The first is whether Cuddy broke a law in making the recording. As others have pointed out, she did not. New Jersey is a one party state, and you can record any conversation that you are a party to.

Whether the recording is admissible in court depends on a lot of factors. Since Cuddy is a private actor, i.e., not employed by the State, whether it was legal or not to make the recording would generally not have any effect on whether it could be admitted in court. Assuming that the employee was criminally prosecuted, I see no issue in using the recording as evidence against her. Contrary to the comment made by somebody else, it is not hearsay because it would be an admission by a party, which is not within the definition of hearsay.

More interesting are the issues concerning the thumb surgery. Clearly the patient did not give consent to the surgery, which makes the surgery a “battery.” (As in assault and battery.) The hospital would be liable for the patient’s damages. They would be minimal in this case. Generally, an attorney will not take a malpractice case unless the damages are well into the six figures, because it is just so expensive to bring these cases and because the medical malpractice insurers all use scorched earth litigation tactics. It is highly unlikely that the carpenter could find a lawyer to represent him.

The scene with the lawyer was totally unrealistic. Administrators do not negotiate potential malpractice cases. They have loss control departments and a potential case is immediately referred to the insurance company. Generally, nobody will even talk to you about your case until you have actually filed a lawsuit. They DO NOT settle cases out of court, as a rule. There are exceptions that prove the rule, but they are far and few between. Malpractice insurers will spend $100,000 defending a case, even a meritorious case, that is worth only $20,000. That is why no experienced attorney will sue a hospital or doctor unless the damages are significant. At a minimum, if there is no permanent injury, no lawyer will take the case. All the pain and suffering in the world is not worth much, without a permanent injury.

Legal fees are not recoverable in a malpractice case. Any lawyer who demands that his fees be paid as part of the settlement will be laughed out of the room.

The bottom line is that somebody at Cuddy’s level would ever be involved in a such a trivial potential lawsuit.

To those complaining that it was an atypical day, maybe it was to an extent. Not every day would be the deadline for negotiating a huge contract, and not every employee she’d have to deal with – and sack – would be that horrible. But she’d have to deal with external companies and unruly employees aside from House on a fairly regular basis, causing stresses of their own.

Scott, thank you for your medical reviews. As I was initially only interested in House for the medicine, it’s been fascinating to read all of your reviews – and it means I can suspend my disbelief whilst watching because I know these are here. Plus I think it’s great to have somewhere to point gullible idiots who take all of the medicine at face value!

Slightly off-topic, I have to say I think season 6 has been my favourite so far: the character development in particular, and no other season has made me laugh so much! I had to pause the DVDs a few times to finish laughing before I could continue!

A very big criticism, however:

> Finally, and she should have pushed this part harder, the breast milk is at best a shot in the dark — it’s wishful thinking — and by writing the prescription she would be confirming the patient’s false hope.

This point is IMO valid only – and absolutely restricted to – when a patient takes the “wishful thinking” as a reason to discontinue other options. As I understand it, there are no other options for this patient.

“Breast milk” (or any other such substance) is at least a viable placebo (as seen by the fact that the patient actually believes into it). There are many accepted substances that evidentially do not work beyond placebo; furthermore, wrong bedside manner can turn even evidentially valid substances into nocebos.

I personally do not know what this whole “false hope”-fuss is. Hope by definition cannot be false, if it does not preclude from maxing out all options. It is the duty of all medical personnel to inform a patient about his chances; I think it is almost criminal to thrash his hopes, however.

A patient in a potentially lethal situation must know his situation. However, I once told a depressed patient: “So what, you have a chance of 20%. I may have a survival chance of 999.8 o/oo. If your case is in the 20%, the probability should not interest you. If I go out and get hit by a lorry or an undiscovered aneurism blasts and I fatally stroke out, a lot of good my 999.8 per mille did me. If your case is in the 80% range, you’ll notice that soon enough. In the future, you’ll feel at times better as well as worse. Get your hopes high that you’re a “20-percenter”; everything else is not your problem to worry about.”

Was this “false hope”? Don’t know to which side it collapsed, but to .8 yes, to .2 no. Even if all IC patients had a chance of 1%, that meant (4 days approx. time in the ICU, 80% approx. occupancy) that 1,750 patients per year in the FR Germany would survive.

Hope may be everything a patient has; and it is a very important factor in reconvalescense. Apart from being important that a patient knows about the severeness of his ailing and probably arranges his affairs, there is much less to be said against hope or “false” hope (that can only be evaluated in retrospect) than against killing off the last chance a patient may have.

Sorry this was longer; greetings from the German-French border.

Ralf

I liked it when she had a conversation with a nurse. I’ve thought for a while that the nurses on House shouldn’t be nameless, faceless, voiceless beings. The most recent episode also depicted a nurse as a person. I’m glad to see it.