Debate: "House, M.D." Episode 10/05/'09

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven

is against stoning.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1
I normally don't do this with television, but last week, I thought that this week's House episode would be interesting, and I was right.

Here's the story:

An African militarist dictator has been hospitalized, during a visit to the United States on UN business, and played very well by his actor, I must say. (James Earl Jones, so what do you expect?) Of course, this makes a very interesting situation for Foreman, Cameron, and Chase. (House is completely neutral about the guy.) Cameron wants to just let him die, so as to prevent the future from taking place; he was going to massacre thousands of Africans in his country should he have survived. (He did die.)
Chase thought it was wrong at first, but then the dictator opened up to him, and he re-thought his actions, as did Cameron's disguised assassination attempt; she begins to believe that she shouldn't sink to his level. Chase, however, thought it would be completely unethical to let him live, and thus, he induced an unstoppable internal bleeding situation. He later reported back to Foreman that he did, in fact, kill the man; Foreman criticized him so much, in a way that made it seem he was going to report Chase to the authorities.

Foreman is later shown burning his report on the situation.



Okay, now that you know the gist of the episode, what do you think? Do you believe Chase was right in his actions? Was it better to kill one man now to save thousands later?



*Note: I didn't post this in Entertainment as there is a bigger picture that wants to be grasped, here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watch House too 8D
One more thing we have in common 8D

I probably would have done what Chase did.
That man who murdered thousands isn't human. I give credit to James Earl Jones for portraying the character so well.

Humanity isn't needed for brutes. Genocide is genocide.

And he was right. Cameron had the bullet. She could have been the martyr; now it's Chase.
You don't even have to justify it in a way that "all life is sacred yadda yadda." That man murdered innocents in thousands. He was cold and manipulative. You could see he was dripping with it. He was trying to manipulate the entire staff.
Eradicating evil doesn't need justification.
I wouldn't let a man like that become a martyr.

I would ask Foreman the same thing.
 
This is an interesting question. The answer fundamentally depends if you're a consequentialist or a deontologist.

I am a deontologist. I would have let him live.
 
I'm not so much bothered by Chase's action in your description, as I am by Foreman's.

Chase killed someone, in particularly trying circumstances. This is murder, but I'm not sure I can say I would have acted any differently in the situation; in that situation, anything he might have done may well have been the wrong answer. He then confessed to his action to the person he should most likely confess to. Not "right", but understandably human actions under the circumstances. If I were to judge/jury his case, I would find him guilty, but go for one of the most lenient sentences possible, with strong hints that he should probably be pardoned eventually.

Foreman, however, had a clear "right" path: to rely the information to the proper authorities, for them to properly determine Chase's guilt and weigh the mitigating circumstances. Instead, Foreman "covered up" for his subordinate. He substituted his opinion to the Law.

I absolutely cannot condone that.
 
Last edited:
Gahh, I havnt seen the episode yet, I DVRed it due to my sister's 20th birthday and the Brett Farve game.

Anyway no Chase wasn't right, while the man could have killed thousands, those thousands were not his patients, the dictator was. Chase took over as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, while forgetting that he took a oath above all else to do no harm. Granted he sees House pretty much violate that oath nearly every week, but we are a nation if not a world of laws. There is a reason we have the UN and G8 and NATO and any number of other entities to deal with dictators and madmen.

Then again maybe my view will change after the episode. For right now, any of the ducklings deciding to step beyond getting this guy well seems to be clearly wrong.

Edit: Gotta agree with Evil Figment here, Foreman is just as guilty.
 
I totally missed this episode (as with much of TV recently. :<) but managed to see a few glimpses of the last 20 minutes. Still this is a thought provoking question. I would probably have let him die, but the law of unintended consequences comes into play...hmm, still it's hard.
 
I would definitely wrestle with the idea some.

Pro: He could kill a whole lot of people.

Con: He hasn't yet.

My problem is that I don't want to exact the ultimate punishment on what I THINK someone will do. I want it based on what actually happened. That's why I'm against torture/imprisonment/execution of those who haven't had due process. While I get a kick emotionally out of being in a country (and now that I live in TX, a whole state) practically addicted to "hang 'em high", mob rule and vigilantism doesn't really help the world either. A lot of dictators got their power because they tried to "save" their world from "those evil Others". When you kill someone because it's in your imagination they are guilty of something, then you are no better than the dictator.
 
Killing one to save others is an interesting philosophical question. Extended to political assassinations etc.

But in this case the issue is that it is a medical practitioner directly and deliberately causing the death of a patient. As stated previously the oaths that doctors take states that they should do no harm. If you have any moral qualms about treating a patient you should just refuse to have anything to do with their treatment. This is a case of gross medical misconduct and the consequences should be immediate removal from the list of medical practitioners followed by legal action if necessary.

For the morality issue I prefer Richard Wiseman's everyday take on it rather than the save millions by killing one, I find it an interesting twist: http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/test-your-morals/
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/religion-and-morality-the-results/
 
Primum non nocere ("First, do no harm") is traditionally thought to be the nexus of healthcare ethics; the saying is attributed to the author of the Hipporatic Oath that all doctors take before entering their profesion. Chase violated the ethical principles of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (bring about positive good) towards his patient. He also violated the patient's autonomy (self-governance).

John Stuart Mill's ethical theory concentrated on freedom of action; he felt that an individual's actions can legitimately be restricted only when they promise to harm someone else.

The bottom line is that Chase committed murder, and should be held accountable for his actions, up to and including losing his license to practice medicine and facing criminal charges.
 
Ehhhhh...It's a hard call. On the one hand, it's a doctor's ethical duty to treat and save any and all patients, regardless of their past actions, present circumstance, or future intentions.

On the other, I really can't find anything morally wrong in the whole "kill one, save a thousand" argument. If I were put in that situation, I'd have no problem pulling the proverbial trigger, especially if the "one" in question was the one who was gonna kill the "thousand".
 
There is a problem in the logic that he saved thousands though. For example he was getting his information from two utterly biased sources. One man was obviously biased from his past, and could only see the death of the President as the only option. The President on the other hand had been heavily medicated, subjected to many medical complications, and who knows how many other problems that could have impaired his mental compacity while talking to Chase. To tell the truth Chase couldn't trust what either of them was saying. And if this was a court room, the testimony of both of them would have been thrown out.

Not to mention Chase had no idea what the political situation was behind the scenes. Any possible inroads made at the UN, any possible back room deals, any possible internal political solutions being worked out in his own country.

He just took the information from a man who's past made him heavily biased, as well as from a heavily medicated man, and decided "Well he must die then"

Edit: One thing I find interesting is that in the end Chase became the President, both in the end truly believed killing would save a country.
 
Last edited:
I think a show should be about entertainment rather than questions of those kinds of ethics. Leave that kind of discussion to the universities, thank you very much.
 
For me, it's a tough call.

Do I agree with what Chase did? No. But do I understand it? Yes, I understand completely. Would I do the same thing? I don't think I could, but I really don't know. Like I said, it's a really tough call.
 
eeek HOUSE FAANS <3 8D

to be honest what choice was there really either he dies.. ir other die and his life is spared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom