If we're talking proper courses of action, what Chase (and probably Cameron) should've done is removed himself from the case. I think Cuddy would probably understand the inability to devote yourself 100% to the treatment of a man who's going to go off and murder a hundred thousand people when you're done.
Yep. Conflict of interest, etc.
But really, fighting a murderer with murder is just so pre-21st century.
If someone has the ability to make some .gifs of the expressions on House's face when he promises to be quiet and is being obnoxious with the X-rays I will love you forever.
If someone has the ability to make some .gifs of the expressions on House's face when he promises to be quiet and is being obnoxious with the X-rays I will love you forever.
That scene was the best thing ever.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If someone has the ability to make some .gifs of the expressions on House's face when he promises to be quiet and is being obnoxious with the X-rays I will love you forever.
If someone has the ability to make some .gifs of the expressions on House's face when he promises to be quiet and is being obnoxious with the X-rays I will love you forever.
If someone has the ability to make some .gifs of the expressions on House's face when he promises to be quiet and is being obnoxious with the X-rays I will love you forever.
Yeah, so this was really good. It almost makes me regret choosing to watch HIMYM last night instead and TiVo this, but whatever.
Concerning the ethical dilemma:
There's a reason doctors get special protection under the Geneva Convention. If he were any other job, I'd say Chase was totally justified, but as a doctor you are entitled to special legal benefits that others don't have. It's a privilege, and Chase violated that.
That said, major cahones all around for covering it up (or trying to). I'm not Foreman, but I probably would have done the same thing.
Chase is there for good guys, I can't wait for him to come clean with House
EDIT more thoughts
Holy fucking shit what a great episode. JEJ was perfect, he was absolutely charismatic enough to believably convince Chase that there are times you must act, and that those acts must destroy your enemies.
The right to self-defense, which also includes the right to defense of a third person, seems applicable here. If we assume that Chase's reading of the dictator is correct, that he intends to enact a policy of genocide and there's no other way for Chase to stop him, then his actions would be justifiable under that concept. While it may or may not be ethical to kill Hitler as a child, doing so when he's an adult immediately before he begins his program of genocide would undeniably be justified, regardless of whether you were a doctor or not. If the doctor was being attacked by a patient, no one would claim he couldn't defend himself because of his oath. If a patient was about to murder someone else, a doctor wouldn't be expected to stand idly by because of professional obligations. While the genocide be less imminent, the gravity of the crime also heightens the duty to do something about it
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.
You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
The right to self-defense, which also includes the right to defense of a third person, seems applicable here. If we assume that Chase's reading of the dictator is correct, that he intends to enact a policy of genocide and there's no other way for Chase to stop him, then his actions would be justifiable under that concept. While it may or may not be ethical to kill Hitler as a child, doing so when he's an adult immediately before he begins his program of genocide would undeniably be justified, regardless of whether you were a doctor or not. If the doctor was being attacked by a patient, no one would claim he couldn't defend himself because of his oath. If a patient was about to murder someone else, a doctor wouldn't be expected to stand idly by because of professional obligations. While the genocide be less imminent, the gravity of the crime also heightens the duty to do something about it
Highly, highly doubt that this would hold up in court. I mean, I see where you're coming from (they had a Law and Order episode to the same effect, SVU, specifically), but I doubt many Courts would agree with the argument. The key factor missing being imminent threat or danger, theoretically, he could have changed his mind.
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.
You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
NotYou on
0
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I don't like how fucking obvious it was that House's script writers just saw Ramachandran's TED speech and thought they should capitalize on it. Lame.
Otherwise, decent episode.
That is all.
God forbid someone watches something else, learns from it, and decides to use it in their own work. That has, like, nothing to do with how human civilization has progressed for thousands of years.
I was trying to find a way to say this without being sarcastic, but I haven't run across the TED presentation that teaches you how to get rid of sarcasm without being incredibly boring.
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.
You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
Yes, yes you can. That's the point. That's why the ethics are so powerful. A priest who broke the seal of confession to turn in a murderer would get thrown out (well maybe, kinda). A lawyer who broke his confidentiality and turned in his own client would get disbarred or worse. A doctor who
MURDERS HIS OWN PATIENT (who is a murderer)
should get his license revoked and then should go to jail.
And if you can't handle that, don't become a lawyer, priest, or doctor. Those ethical rules are there for a reason.
There are proper channels to handle these things. Being a vigilante and breaking your professional ethical obligations - which, yes, supersede everyday "normal person" ethical obligations - is always bad.
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.
You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
Yes, yes you can. That's the point. That's why the ethics are so powerful. A priest who broke the seal of confession to turn in a murderer would get thrown out (well maybe, kinda). A lawyer who broke his confidentiality and turned in his own client would get disbarred or worse. A doctor who MURDERS HIS OWN PATIENT (who is a murderer) should get his license revoked and then should go to jail.
And if you can't handle that, don't become a lawyer, priest, or doctor. Those ethical rules are there for a reason.
There are proper channels to handle these things. Being a vigilante and breaking your professional ethical obligations - which, yes, supersede everyday "normal person" ethical obligations - is always bad.
What you are describing is how society punishes people who break the rules of their profession, not one ethical obligation superseding another. Ethics don't change when you get a new job.
It seems like there's a lot of people not understanding the difference between morals and ethics here.
Chase acted unethically, and there's really no question about that. The oath he took when he became a doctor is perfectly clear, and he violated it. The oath is of utmost importance, and his violation thereof necessitates him losing his job and (depending on how things work, I don't know) spending time in prison.
Whether or not he acted *morally* is something we can argue about.
I for one would argue he acted morally and did the right thing as a human being, even though he clearly did the wrong thing as a doctor. His actions cannot be tolerated in a world where we want doctors to have the ability to act as they do, so he must face punishment, even if what he did was morally right.
Only thing Chase did wrong is admitting anything to stupid ass Foreman who keeps giving me more reasons why I want HIM killed and signing in with his own name. At least Foreman burned the paper in the end...
House has been watching Dexter. :P
I too like the old team more. Hopefully they stick around. 13 can replace Foreman if they want to shake things up.
Not sure if we're still spoilering this stuff, but just in case:
Chase didn't actually kill dudeman. He faked a test so that it would indicate a higher probability that dudeman had one of the two diseases they thought he had, prompting Foreman to probably switch his medication, which would kill him if he didn't actually have that disease. House and Cameron both thought he actually had the disease that Chase tricked Foreman into treating him for. I can't remember what the diseases were, so call them Disease A (the one Foreman thought he had) and Disease B (the one Chase faked the test for). If he'd actually had Disease B, switching the drugs may have saved his life. Or he might have died anyway because they'd been treating him for Disease A for too long, as demonstrated by Foreman and House's conversation after his death.
I can't think of any specific examples, but I'm fairly certain that House, or one of the other team members, have faked tests before in order to convince Cuddy to let them use some radical treatment on a patient whom they couldn't prove had the problem they said they did. The only difference here is that Chase didn't actually think that dudeman had Disease B, and he could have actually performed the test that he said he did.
It would have been funny, though less dramatic, if it turned out dudeman actually had Disease B and the faked test saved his life. Maybe that's how they'll save Chase: the autopsy will reveal that he actually had Disease B and that their treatment was too late to save him, so the ambassador from Unnamed African Nation will demand Foreman lose his license for treating dudeman for Disease A.
Taub, Kutner and Amber were the only really interesting people in that entire crop of crappy new doctors, and two of them are dead. Taub/Chase/Foreman battling egos with House would be some quality television, and we could get hilarious bar scenes where they're all drinking and professing sagely comments like"bitches be crazy"
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.
You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
Yes, yes you can. That's the point. That's why the ethics are so powerful. A priest who broke the seal of confession to turn in a murderer would get thrown out (well maybe, kinda). A lawyer who broke his confidentiality and turned in his own client would get disbarred or worse. A doctor who MURDERS HIS OWN PATIENT (who is a murderer) should get his license revoked and then should go to jail.
And if you can't handle that, don't become a lawyer, priest, or doctor. Those ethical rules are there for a reason.
There are proper channels to handle these things. Being a vigilante and breaking your professional ethical obligations - which, yes, supersede everyday "normal person" ethical obligations - is always bad.
What you are describing is how society punishes people who break the rules of their profession, not one ethical obligation superseding another. Ethics don't change when you get a new job.
i'm done now. won't be back.
You said "you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally." I think I've pretty clearly illustrated that YES, you sometimes DO have to act "immorally." Priests can't turn in murderers who have confessed their sin under the seal of the confessional. Lawyers can't betray client-lawyer confidentiality, even to prevent a crime. And doctors can't betray his medical ethics and kill his patient, even in the circumstances of this TV show.
And as a society, we have decided that this is the best way to function, as a whole. (Hence, the laws preventing vigilantism, breaking lawyer privilege, protecting religious confidentiality, and establishing medical ethics.)
It seems like there's a lot of people not understanding the difference between morals and ethics here.
Chase acted unethically, and there's really no question about that. The oath he took when he became a doctor is perfectly clear, and he violated it. The oath is of utmost importance, and his violation thereof necessitates him losing his job and (depending on how things work, I don't know) spending time in prison.
Whether or not he acted *morally* is something we can argue about.
I for one would argue he acted morally and did the right thing as a human being, even though he clearly did the wrong thing as a doctor. His actions cannot be tolerated in a world where we want doctors to have the ability to act as they do, so he must face punishment, even if what he did was morally right.
One must supersede the other, though. Either the ethics of your profession or your personal morality. When push comes to shove, one wins out or the other. Though most of the time, they fall hand in hand (for doctors at least, probably not as much for criminal defense attorneys) - but on rare occasions, they don't, and one has to win.
I think that most of us understand the difference here, it's just that some people think that, ultimately, personal morality comes first, and others (like, say, OUR LAW MAKERS) believe that professional ethics come first. I'm firmly in the professional ethics-comes-first-crowd.
that the genocide might go ahead anyway, pesuming the leader had surrounded himself with like-minded people?
Presumably, but they had a throwaway line at the end about how
with the dictator dead the moderates were taking control of the country and trying to shut down his torture gangs. It does seem like a hell of a gamble to remove the apparently reasonable, if somewhat insane, dictator and just hope that someone better crops up to replace him.
I think that most of us understand the difference here, it's just that some people think that, ultimately, personal morality comes first, and others (like, say, OUR LAW MAKERS) believe that professional ethics come first. I'm firmly in the professional ethics-comes-first-crowd.
The ability to recuse one's self from a situation that provides both a moral and ethical quandary is necessary in jobs that come with an oath of ethics. It's a moral safety cord. Don't agree with something your job puts you in a position to do? You can (generally) not do it and face no negative repercussions.
The one case where this doesn't apply is Catholic priests. They may never link a confession with the confessor, or they face automatic excommunication.
There isn't any ethical wiggle room for what Chase did. He put his personal morality before his professional ethics, which he swore never to do.
...personally, I believe what he did was unjust. He was defending neither family nor property. Chase influenced events to lead to the execution of a man in which whose death he had no personal stake.
I'm pretty sure a lawyer can't recuse himself after a certain point in the case, right? (At least not without a legal cause, like, say, a conflict of interest(?) or something. But a lawyer can't recuse himself because he believes his client is guilty, for example.)
Melkster on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
that the genocide might go ahead anyway, pesuming the leader had surrounded himself with like-minded people?
Chase doesn't think that far ahead.
No, he did.
JEJ clearly said that he was surrounded by advisors who wanted to talk, but not act. In this case, talking would be worlds more preferable than action.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
that the genocide might go ahead anyway, pesuming the leader had surrounded himself with like-minded people?
Chase doesn't think that far ahead.
No, he did.
JEJ clearly said that he was surrounded by advisors who wanted to talk, but not act. In this case, talking would be worlds more preferable than action.
Oh, I interpreted that as the rantings of an old, angry man in a hospital on the edge of death. I didn't think that his cabinet was actually weak.
Posts
Yep. Conflict of interest, etc.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I don't like how fucking obvious it was that House's script writers just saw Ramachandran's TED speech and thought they should capitalize on it. Lame.
Otherwise, decent episode.
That is all.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
I just assumed they had read Phantoms in the Brain
That scene was the best thing ever.
I didn't make these, but...
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8135/cheerleadere.gif
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1192/hoorayh.gif
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6265/mime.gif
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4835/notagain.gif
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6678/ohnoa.gif
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3781/thumbsupz.gif
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3484/wanker2.gif
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4245/zipit.gif
no linking from this host, what amazing images.
I have no idea what you're talking about... >.>
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/ampoliros/cupscene.gif
Concerning the ethical dilemma:
That said, major cahones all around for covering it up (or trying to). I'm not Foreman, but I probably would have done the same thing.
Now if that was all just a cock tease and they do away with Chase, I will be furious.
Yeah, the "What is this? 3 years ago?" thing made my night.
The ethical/moral dilemma was fantastic, and I think it was probably one of the better "stand alone" kind of episodes.
EDIT more thoughts
Holy fucking shit what a great episode. JEJ was perfect, he was absolutely charismatic enough to believably convince Chase that there are times you must act, and that those acts must destroy your enemies.
"My condolences. Although... it's not like she's the hottest woman in the world, or anything."
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Same with being a doctor.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
God forbid someone watches something else, learns from it, and decides to use it in their own work. That has, like, nothing to do with how human civilization has progressed for thousands of years.
I was trying to find a way to say this without being sarcastic, but I haven't run across the TED presentation that teaches you how to get rid of sarcasm without being incredibly boring.
Yes, yes you can. That's the point. That's why the ethics are so powerful. A priest who broke the seal of confession to turn in a murderer would get thrown out (well maybe, kinda). A lawyer who broke his confidentiality and turned in his own client would get disbarred or worse. A doctor who
And if you can't handle that, don't become a lawyer, priest, or doctor. Those ethical rules are there for a reason.
There are proper channels to handle these things. Being a vigilante and breaking your professional ethical obligations - which, yes, supersede everyday "normal person" ethical obligations - is always bad.
What you are describing is how society punishes people who break the rules of their profession, not one ethical obligation superseding another. Ethics don't change when you get a new job.
i'm done now. won't be back.
a doctor who kills people on purpose? Worst. Doctor. Ever.
Steam
He gambled with people's lives on the hopes that he'd never be found out and thus make the problem worse.
Totally saw the whole switch between Chase/Cameron coming though.
Chase acted unethically, and there's really no question about that. The oath he took when he became a doctor is perfectly clear, and he violated it. The oath is of utmost importance, and his violation thereof necessitates him losing his job and (depending on how things work, I don't know) spending time in prison.
Whether or not he acted *morally* is something we can argue about.
I for one would argue he acted morally and did the right thing as a human being, even though he clearly did the wrong thing as a doctor. His actions cannot be tolerated in a world where we want doctors to have the ability to act as they do, so he must face punishment, even if what he did was morally right.
House has been watching Dexter. :P
I too like the old team more. Hopefully they stick around. 13 can replace Foreman if they want to shake things up.
I can't think of any specific examples, but I'm fairly certain that House, or one of the other team members, have faked tests before in order to convince Cuddy to let them use some radical treatment on a patient whom they couldn't prove had the problem they said they did. The only difference here is that Chase didn't actually think that dudeman had Disease B, and he could have actually performed the test that he said he did.
It would have been funny, though less dramatic, if it turned out dudeman actually had Disease B and the faked test saved his life. Maybe that's how they'll save Chase: the autopsy will reveal that he actually had Disease B and that their treatment was too late to save him, so the ambassador from Unnamed African Nation will demand Foreman lose his license for treating dudeman for Disease A.
You said "you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally." I think I've pretty clearly illustrated that YES, you sometimes DO have to act "immorally." Priests can't turn in murderers who have confessed their sin under the seal of the confessional. Lawyers can't betray client-lawyer confidentiality, even to prevent a crime. And doctors can't betray his medical ethics and kill his patient, even in the circumstances of this TV show.
And as a society, we have decided that this is the best way to function, as a whole. (Hence, the laws preventing vigilantism, breaking lawyer privilege, protecting religious confidentiality, and establishing medical ethics.)
One must supersede the other, though. Either the ethics of your profession or your personal morality. When push comes to shove, one wins out or the other. Though most of the time, they fall hand in hand (for doctors at least, probably not as much for criminal defense attorneys) - but on rare occasions, they don't, and one has to win.
I think that most of us understand the difference here, it's just that some people think that, ultimately, personal morality comes first, and others (like, say, OUR LAW MAKERS) believe that professional ethics come first. I'm firmly in the professional ethics-comes-first-crowd.
Chase doesn't think that far ahead.
Presumably, but they had a throwaway line at the end about how
I'm pretty sure a lawyer can't recuse himself after a certain point in the case, right? (At least not without a legal cause, like, say, a conflict of interest(?) or something. But a lawyer can't recuse himself because he believes his client is guilty, for example.)
No, he did.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Oh, I interpreted that as the rantings of an old, angry man in a hospital on the edge of death. I didn't think that his cabinet was actually weak.