David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Ethics Essay: Why Does America Love Dr. House?
DR. Richard Fogoros, M.D.
April 10, 2009
DrRich thanks the Cockroach Catcher (his favorite retired child psychologist) for pointing him to an article (by Mark Wicclair, a bioethicist) and an accompanying editorial (by Deborah Kirklin, a primary care physician) in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Medical Humanities, which deconstruct the television show House MD.
A TV show may at first glance seem a strange subject for a medical journal, but this is, after all, a journal whose subject is the ?softer? side of medical science. (DrRich hopes his friend the Cockroach Catcher will take no offense at this characterization, and directs him, in the way of an apology, to the recent swipes DrRich has taken at his own cardiology colleagues for their recent sorry efforts at ?hard? medical science.) Besides, the Medical Humanities authors use the premise and the popularity of House MD to ask important questions about medical ethics, and the consequent expectations of our society.
DrRich does not watch many television shows, and in particular and out of general principles he avoids medical shows. But he has seen commercials for House, and has heard plenty about it from friends, so he has the gist of it. The editorial by Dr. Kirklin summarizes:
It has been formally agreed, all over the world, that patients have a nearly absolute right to determine their own medical destiny. In particular, unless the patient is incapacitated, the doctor must (after taking every step necessary to inform the patient of all the available options, and the potential risks and benefits of each one) defer to the final decision of the patient - even if the doctor strongly disagrees with that decision. Hence, the kind of behavior which is the modus operandi of Dr. House should be universally castigated.
So, the question is: Given that House extravagantly violates his patients? autonomy whenever he finds an opportunity to do so, joyfully proclaiming his great contempt for their individual rights, then why is his story so popular? And what does that popularity say about us?
Read the full article
DR. Richard Fogoros, M.D.
April 10, 2009
DrRich thanks the Cockroach Catcher (his favorite retired child psychologist) for pointing him to an article (by Mark Wicclair, a bioethicist) and an accompanying editorial (by Deborah Kirklin, a primary care physician) in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Medical Humanities, which deconstruct the television show House MD.
A TV show may at first glance seem a strange subject for a medical journal, but this is, after all, a journal whose subject is the ?softer? side of medical science. (DrRich hopes his friend the Cockroach Catcher will take no offense at this characterization, and directs him, in the way of an apology, to the recent swipes DrRich has taken at his own cardiology colleagues for their recent sorry efforts at ?hard? medical science.) Besides, the Medical Humanities authors use the premise and the popularity of House MD to ask important questions about medical ethics, and the consequent expectations of our society.
DrRich does not watch many television shows, and in particular and out of general principles he avoids medical shows. But he has seen commercials for House, and has heard plenty about it from friends, so he has the gist of it. The editorial by Dr. Kirklin summarizes:
?[House] is arrogant, rude and considers all patients lying idiots. He will do anything, illegal or otherwise, to ensure that his patients?passive objects of his expert attentions?get the investigations and treatments he knows they need. As Wicclair argues, House disregards his patients? autonomy whenever he deems it necessary.?
Given such a premise, the great popularity of House MD raises an obvious question. Dr. Kirklin:?? why, given the apparently widely-shared patient expectation that their wishes be respected, do audiences around the world seem so enamoured of House??
Indeed. While it has not always been the case, maintaining the autonomy of the individual patient has become the primary principle of medical ethics. And medical paternalism, whereby the physician knows best and should rightly make the important medical decisions for his or her patient, is a thing of the past.It has been formally agreed, all over the world, that patients have a nearly absolute right to determine their own medical destiny. In particular, unless the patient is incapacitated, the doctor must (after taking every step necessary to inform the patient of all the available options, and the potential risks and benefits of each one) defer to the final decision of the patient - even if the doctor strongly disagrees with that decision. Hence, the kind of behavior which is the modus operandi of Dr. House should be universally castigated.
So, the question is: Given that House extravagantly violates his patients? autonomy whenever he finds an opportunity to do so, joyfully proclaiming his great contempt for their individual rights, then why is his story so popular? And what does that popularity say about us?
Read the full article
