Media, Pop Culture, And Medical "malpractice"...

[Tyler]

So, I'm currently in a contemporary ethics class and we have to do a presentation on a topic of choice. After watching House, I remember reading that all cases in House were based off of actual cases in real life. While I'm certain that a lot of the drama of the show is fabricated, there are a few things that I could use for the paper/presentation.

One, there's an episode where a guy uses the internet at the same time he is being treated at the hospital, more brains could equal more answers, but at what cost? He almost caused his own death by the doctors placating his request that all ideas be looked over by the medical staff. Has the internet, things like Web MD, Wikipedia, and searches improved or hindered the medical field?

Two, there are multiple cases of lying and hiding that goes on in House, most of which usually lead to the clue of solving the disease de jour. However, a lot of the choices made were dangerous and some lead to the death of patients. Is it okay to do this if we save 98% of the patients but lose 2% on a hunch, lie, or secret?

Three, are doctors and medical staff becoming less and less patient oriented and more forced to deal with media and political backlashings because of these two things? Are we hindering medicine in the face of an era where science is coming out with breakthrough after breakthrough?

Just wanted to get some ideas flowing, feel free to comment as you wish as long as it partains to the ideas and topics on hand. Feel free to bring up other such points.

I will ask for deleting of posts if this turns into:
Political anything
Name calling, rudeness, or general disrespect
Off topic ramblings.

In serious cases I will ask for a temp ban as you've been warned here. And no, do not comment on this last section as it does not partain to the actual thread itself.

[Rani]

So, I'm currently in a contemporary ethics class and we have to do a presentation on a topic of choice. After watching House, I remember reading that all cases in House were based off of actual cases in real life. While I'm certain that a lot of the drama of the show is fabricated, there are a few things that I could use for the paper/presentation.

One, there's an episode where a guy uses the internet at the same time he is being treated at the hospital, more brains could equal more answers, but at what cost? He almost caused his own death by the doctors placating his request that all ideas be looked over by the medical staff. Has the internet, things like Web MD, Wikipedia, and searches improved or hindered the medical field? Strictly as an opinion, I would suggest that the internet has improved the medical field because of it's connectivity between medical professionals. Two different doctors in different parts of the world may be researching the same disease and by connecting find they're approaching it from two different angles resulting in combining the research that might end in a cure. While that's supposition, there appears to be a defined result that more information leads to greater discoveries. The spread of information also leads to exposure of falshood or misconception which has historically been the antithesis of advancement.

Two, there are multiple cases of lying and hiding that goes on in House, most of which usually lead to the clue of solving the disease de jour. However, a lot of the choices made were dangerous and some lead to the death of patients. Is it okay to do this if we save 98% of the patients but lose 2% on a hunch, lie, or secret? I'm not certain there's a single answer to this one. I would think it would depend (among other things) on the terminal nature of the disease as one deciding factor. For example AIDS. Would that be an acceptable risk if we know in advance that the loss would be 2% yet result in a cure for the other 98%? I believe most active AIDS patients would agree to the risk even considering they might be in the 2%.

Three, are doctors and medical staff becoming less and less patient oriented and more forced to deal with media and political backlashings because of these two things? Are we hindering medicine in the face of an era where science is coming out with breakthrough after breakthrough? I think due to a combination of the increasing multiplication of research (the more we know, the more we build on and so kinowledge doubles at a faster rate) and media interference, we are being pushed to the point where all medical research is going to become a completely separate discipline with little or no patient contact. I would suggest that this is shown in the growth of strictly patient care professionals such as nurse practioners, etc. I think in the long run this is probably a good thing. Any compassionate person dealing with a patient one on one with whom they have over time made an emotional investment in their treatment of them may have greater difficulty approaching potential cures with detachment due to the failures that are inherent in research. They may choose not to expose their patient to potentially harmful treatment where as researching would not face that difficult decision. As far as the media is concerned, I don't believe they should be allowed to become involved in certain practices. Where we draw the line I'm not certain - but if personal medical history and treatment is supposed to be completely comfidential, then should not also be malpractice suits, etc. I personally have not come to a comfortable conclusion but I believe the media does often inflame sensitive issues all out of proportion. This would become less of an issue I would think with the separation of pure research from patient care.

Just wanted to get some ideas flowing, feel free to comment as you wish as long as it partains to the ideas and topics on hand. Feel free to bring up other such points.

I will ask for deleting of posts if this turns into:
Political anything
Name calling, rudeness, or general disrespect
Off topic ramblings.

In serious cases I will ask for a temp ban as you've been warned here. And no, do not comment on this last section as it does not partain to the actual thread itself.

'Rani

[FiveSpeedF150]

Doctors kill patients while trying to help them sometimes. It happens. If a doctor such as House, who gets all the omgwtfbbq-type cases, managed to save 98% with his unorthodox style I'd be kicking down doors trying to get him to treat me if I has some unknown bug.

All I really have there, I don't work in the medical field so I can't comment on things like WebMD, although a little voice in the back of my head is suggesting that perhaps these things also allow people to become more self-sufficient, allowing less strain on the med industry for the cases that really need doctor attention?

[Tyler]

So, I'm currently in a contemporary ethics class and we have to do a presentation on a topic of choice. After watching House, I remember reading that all cases in House were based off of actual cases in real life. While I'm certain that a lot of the drama of the show is fabricated, there are a few things that I could use for the paper/presentation.

One, there's an episode where a guy uses the internet at the same time he is being treated at the hospital, more brains could equal more answers, but at what cost? He almost caused his own death by the doctors placating his request that all ideas be looked over by the medical staff. Has the internet, things like Web MD, Wikipedia, and searches improved or hindered the medical field? Strictly as an opinion, I would suggest that the internet has improved the medical field because of it's connectivity between medical professionals. Two different doctors in different parts of the world may be researching the same disease and by connecting find they're approaching it from two different angles resulting in combining the research that might end in a cure. While that's supposition, there appears to be a defined result that more information leads to greater discoveries. The spread of information also leads to exposure of falshood or misconception which has historically been the antithesis of advancement. I agree somewhat. The ability for two or more doctors to network has boundless oppertunities for doing good; however, what about patients? If a patient has flu like symptoms and goes to WebMD instead of a doctor, when they could have something like sarcoidosis, wouldn't that be a bad thing? I know this probably doesn't happen a lot, but I'm sure it happens more often than never.

Two, there are multiple cases of lying and hiding that goes on in House, most of which usually lead to the clue of solving the disease de jour. However, a lot of the choices made were dangerous and some lead to the death of patients. Is it okay to do this if we save 98% of the patients but lose 2% on a hunch, lie, or secret? I'm not certain there's a single answer to this one. I would think it would depend (among other things) on the terminal nature of the disease as one deciding factor. For example AIDS. Would that be an acceptable risk if we know in advance that the loss would be 2% yet result in a cure for the other 98%? I believe most active AIDS patients would agree to the risk even considering they might be in the 2%. I'm talking in a more politcal sense. Things such as M&Ms like we saw on last week's house episode, where a patient died because a doctor had a hunch on what the problem was, so he faked a test to change the deciding doctor's mind on how to treat. Then there are cases where fakes tests were needed to persuade people to treat for the desease the person actually had and no one believed.

Three, are doctors and medical staff becoming less and less patient oriented and more forced to deal with media and political backlashings because of these two things? Are we hindering medicine in the face of an era where science is coming out with breakthrough after breakthrough? I think due to a combination of the increasing multiplication of research (the more we know, the more we build on and so kinowledge doubles at a faster rate) and media interference, we are being pushed to the point where all medical research is going to become a completely separate discipline with little or no patient contact. I would suggest that this is shown in the growth of strictly patient care professionals such as nurse practioners, etc. I think in the long run this is probably a good thing. Any compassionate person dealing with a patient one on one with whom they have over time made an emotional investment in their treatment of them may have greater difficulty approaching potential cures with detachment due to the failures that are inherent in research. They may choose not to expose their patient to potentially harmful treatment where as researching would not face that difficult decision. As far as the media is concerned, I don't believe they should be allowed to become involved in certain practices. Where we draw the line I'm not certain - but if personal medical history and treatment is supposed to be completely comfidential, then should not also be malpractice suits, etc. I personally have not come to a comfortable conclusion but I believe the media does often inflame sensitive issues all out of proportion. This would become less of an issue I would think with the separation of pure research from patient care. I would agree with you here 99%. 1% comes from the fact that from what I hear from a few of my nursing friends, is that a lot of nurses are becoming less and less empathetical, and anyone in the field should know how important love/friendship/ect is to the healing process. There has always been nurses who got into the field for the wrong reasons, but I think it's a growing problem. I also think it's sad that a lot of hospitals no longer have resident chalpins, due to the media attentio they can draw because they have a preist, yet no one for the Muslims to talk to, or a Rabbi but no priest, ect....

Just wanted to get some ideas flowing, feel free to comment as you wish as long as it partains to the ideas and topics on hand. Feel free to bring up other such points.

I will ask for deleting of posts if this turns into:
Political anything
Name calling, rudeness, or general disrespect
Off topic ramblings.

In serious cases I will ask for a temp ban as you've been warned here. And no, do not comment on this last section as it does not partain to the actual thread itself.

'Rani

[judgeposer]

So, I'm currently in a contemporary ethics class and we have to do a presentation on a topic of choice. After watching House, I remember reading that all cases in House were based off of actual cases in real life. While I'm certain that a lot of the drama of the show is fabricated, there are a few things that I could use for the paper/presentation.

Contemporary Ethics, huh? What significance does the word "contemporary" have in this sense, I wonder. Does it mean to modify/describe the sorts of problems, as in contemporary ethical dilemmas? Or, does it mean the use of new, "contemporary" ethical theories to reason through typical ethical problems?

One, there's an episode where a guy uses the internet at the same time he is being treated at the hospital, more brains could equal more answers, but at what cost? He almost caused his own death by the doctors placating his request that all ideas be looked over by the medical staff. Has the internet, things like Web MD, Wikipedia, and searches improved or hindered the medical field?

I believe the internet has instrumental value, not intrinsic value. That is to say that it is a thing that lacks an intrinsic moral worth. Instead, it is a type of thing that its use determines its moral worth. This is a value theory assessment.

In those instances where someone uses the internet to educate themselves, gain knowledge, create distinctions and understanding, I think we can acknowledge its benefit and appreciate its good use. In those other instances, however, where someone, say a hypochondriac, uses it and thereby increases their debilitation, we can acknowledge its hindrance on that person's overall well-being.

This isn't a relativist approach, but one that begins by trying to first classify (in our case the "internet").

Two, there are multiple cases of lying and hiding that goes on in House, most of which usually lead to the clue of solving the disease de jour. However, a lot of the choices made were dangerous and some lead to the death of patients. Is it okay to do this if we save 98% of the patients but lose 2% on a hunch, lie, or secret?

I think the instance you mention violates the requirement for 'informed consent,' unless of course the patient has agreed to submit to a sort of medical experiment where the details of their care remain hidden from them. Aside, I would hardly consider cavalier or dangerous the instance where a doctor's treatment leads to a 98% success rate - that is without knowing specifics, and speaking generally.

Three, are doctors and medical staff becoming less and less patient oriented and more forced to deal with media and political backlashings because of these two things? Are we hindering medicine in the face of an era where science is coming out with breakthrough after breakthrough?

The medical services industry has long accepted the road of less patient-oriented care. The increased desire to specialize, the increase in patient dissatisfaction, and the reluctance of doctors to pursue methods of care that might result in future tort actions against them all indicate that doctors and their colleagues, as an industry, have given up trying to "treat." At one time this country had a clean division between allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine, each of which offered divergent philosophies of patient care, but both resolved at least on helping the patient. The collapsing of that division provides evidence for the argument that the medical services industry cares less now, at least seemingly than before, on patient-centered care. Osteopaths are now found specializing in once exclusively allopathic specialties. Osteopathic medical students compete with allopathic ones for the same prized residencies. Now, the cirriculum in most osteopathic institutions so closely resembles those taught in allopathic schools that the different labels have created a distinction without a difference.

[TheScotsman]

So, I'm currently in a contemporary ethics class and we have to do a presentation on a topic of choice. After watching House, I remember reading that all cases in House were based off of actual cases in real life. While I'm certain that a lot of the drama of the show is fabricated, there are a few things that I could use for the paper/presentation.

One, there's an episode where a guy uses the internet at the same time he is being treated at the hospital, more brains could equal more answers, but at what cost? He almost caused his own death by the doctors placating his request that all ideas be looked over by the medical staff. Has the internet, things like Web MD, Wikipedia, and searches improved or hindered the medical field? Strictly as an opinion, I would suggest that the internet has improved the medical field because of it's connectivity between medical professionals. Two different doctors in different parts of the world may be researching the same disease and by connecting find they're approaching it from two different angles resulting in combining the research that might end in a cure. While that's supposition, there appears to be a defined result that more information leads to greater discoveries. The spread of information also leads to exposure of falshood or misconception which has historically been the antithesis of advancement.

I would have to agree for the most part. But there is money in a cure, it would be naive to think the pill-people are going to freely share information with each other. As far as practitioners communication with other specialists, it's a great idea, but someone is going to get a bill for the consult. At what point is the consultation a medically justified action, or just pocket-lining for some hospital or Dr?

Two, there are multiple cases of lying and hiding that goes on in House, most of which usually lead to the clue of solving the disease de jour. However, a lot of the choices made were dangerous and some lead to the death of patients. Is it okay to do this if we save 98% of the patients but lose 2% on a hunch, lie, or secret? I'm not certain there's a single answer to this one. I would think it would depend (among other things) on the terminal nature of the disease as one deciding factor. For example AIDS. Would that be an acceptable risk if we know in advance that the loss would be 2% yet result in a cure for the other 98%? I believe most active AIDS patients would agree to the risk even considering they might be in the 2%.

Life is a gamble, and nothing is going to be a magic-bullet. There are always going to be some cases where the treatment is either not going to help, or is going to make things worse. Look in any Rx reference book, and realize just how many drugs there are in which we really don't know how they work. I really do think there is an attempt to minimize the possible negatives to any medical treatment. A patient has a right to informed consent, something not possible with medical personnel lying/hiding any information. As an example, look at gardasil, a year ago it was touted as perfect, now they are finding that less than 10% of the problems were actually included in the FDA report. The drug co bucks skew the testing, the patient goes uninformed, and as a result takes risks they wouldn't if the information was accurate. Back in the mid '80's some DR got nailed for taking bribes to skew NSAIDS testing. Weather the drug helped anyone, or not, the actions to get it approved were wrong in both cases.

Three, are doctors and medical staff becoming less and less patient oriented and more forced to deal with media and political backlashings because of these two things? Are we hindering medicine in the face of an era where science is coming out with breakthrough after breakthrough? I think due to a combination of the increasing multiplication of research (the more we know, the more we build on and so kinowledge doubles at a faster rate) and media interference, we are being pushed to the point where all medical research is going to become a completely separate discipline with little or no patient contact. I would suggest that this is shown in the growth of strictly patient care professionals such as nurse practioners, etc. I think in the long run this is probably a good thing. Any compassionate person dealing with a patient one on one with whom they have over time made an emotional investment in their treatment of them may have greater difficulty approaching potential cures with detachment due to the failures that are inherent in research. They may choose not to expose their patient to potentially harmful treatment where as researching would not face that difficult decision. As far as the media is concerned, I don't believe they should be allowed to become involved in certain practices. Where we draw the line I'm not certain - but if personal medical history and treatment is supposed to be completely comfidential, then should not also be malpractice suits, etc. I personally have not come to a comfortable conclusion but I believe the media does often inflame sensitive issues all out of proportion. This would become less of an issue I would think with the separation of pure research from patient care.

Mal practice is easy to fix.
1)force all cases to go to trial, no settlements, no sealed documents.
2)loosing attorney pays all court costs.
done... no more BS lawsuits.
Confidentiality be damn, if some Dr cuts off the wrong arm, who cares who find out? I would want to scream it from the mountain tops. That confidentiality-koolaid is what keeps the inept in their practices. All the while, we don't want to have hospitals suddenly making decisions on who to treat as a result of some arbitrary score, or fear they are going to be all over the national enquirer the next week. Interesting paradox.

I would agree, we are headed to a point where research is, and should be a separate field. I am not sure if that is a good thing, or not. History is full of doctors in the field, taking the steps they thought were needed, to save/cure a person. More and more, we are going to see specialization. That may be a better idea than separating research from practice. Furthermore, by seperating the practice from the discovery, we would be inducing an insanely stupid lag between first discovery of a disease/illlness, and the initial start of finding a cure. Isn't all medical treatment, by it's very nature, potentially harmful? There is no such thing as a zero-risk world, as much as the euphorians would try to create such. Even a vitamin pill could kill you, but you know the risks, the decision is informed, and it's your right to accept or reject it.

Just wanted to get some ideas flowing, feel free to comment as you wish as long as it partains to the ideas and topics on hand. Feel free to bring up other such points.

I will ask for deleting of posts if this turns into:
Political anything
Name calling, rudeness, or general disrespect
Off topic ramblings.

In serious cases I will ask for a temp ban as you've been warned here. And no, do not comment on this last section as it does not partain to the actual thread itself.

'Rani

Gustavus

[fantasia]

thanks for telling us about [url="http://www.medical-malpractice-court-cases.com/"]Medical Malpractice Court Cases[/url]...........