I’ve noticed both medical dramas and police dramas rely heavily on Californian legal practice, because Hollywood. For example, I just watched the episode of Doc (it’s literally just called Doc) where a doctor saved someone on the “DNR list” and almost got suspended, and so here I was thinking “the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment”. Of course, though, the US (and definitely California) are not the whole world. So I was wondering, what’s an episode of a medical/police drama you could think of where, in your legal environment, the characters would seem crazy for diving into the topic of how they did?
There was an episode of The Good Doctor where two of Shaun’s patients were teenagers who had a one night stand, and the doctors are arguing over the ethics of it, and Shaun has the last word when he mentioned it’s legal in California for consenting teenagers to do it up if they were both teenagers and consented, and he shuts down the debate. This is bold and alarming for a TV show within California, but things get worse outside of California and especially outside the US where people can be more conservative. Some people poke the bear, but they were striking the bear with a frypan here with walking the lines that would get the show banned in places like Korea where the show’s predecessor originated in the first place.
Is the controversy because they’re having sex in the hospital?
I mean, Shaun isn’t wrong.
Not directly related to the question, but Brazilian medical drama is nurses fighting to keep shit up and running on hospitals while medics clock in then head off to their particular clinics.
Brazil also still has separate military and civil polices, the former doing the legwork and shooting people, the latter doing actual investigations, so any USA-like police drama just wouldn’t work here.
Makes me wonder when someone is going to make a military drama.
They did, it was called MASH. I guess it was more of a comedy but still… It could be pretty dramatic
Don’t forget JAG, though that was truly just bad tv.
I thought they were lawyers?
Doctor Mike is a real doctor with a youtube channel. He reviews multiple episodes of House and they’re hilarious. It’s like every time House has some epiphany and orders some new radical treatment he winds up yelling “WHY!?” into the ether.
a doctor saved someone on the “DNR list” and almost got suspended, and so here I was thinking “the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment”.
Assuming you mean a Do Not Resuscitate order; not list
Curious what you mean by it not flying in your environment.The conceptualization behind them isn’t treated everywhere equally. I’m not as traditionally-minded as the people around me, but I live somewhere that’s far more traditional than progressive California. Now maybe I’m not updated on the norms (and to be fair, I’m still new here), but I think I remember reading it’s viewed as an omen of a shortage of therapy here, in the same way as its more self-destructive alternatives.
Are you saying that a DNR would be viewed as the same as euthanasia? Because those are very different things legally and a DNR is a very standard document in most developed countries.
Different in some places but not everywhere. I’m not saying this as a position, just an observation. My viewpoint would be far more developed than even that.
Well what is your viewpoint? After multiple comments I still can’t piece it together.
Because I wasn’t mentioning my own viewpoint, I was mentioning how the law might differ.
I did explain it explicitly, so I think the best way to explain it then is with an analogy/visualization.
Imagine an umbrella. The umbrella is labelled “issues of self-harm”. Underneath the umbrella are all the things which can amount to or turn into it.
On the very edge underneath it is the issue of DNR. Where you live, the umbrella is nudged away from it. Where I live, the umbrella would just pass over it.
My own stance, which I have not mentioned until right now, is that, supposing someone has asked all the questions to themselves relating to their life, they should consult whoever has authority over the DNR or whatever it is.
The fact the very same important questions can be asked in the first place regarding both aspects of this issue (which you give the impression don’t come off as related) shows they are related in the ways alluded to. The episode of Doc even explored this very thing. Hence I said that would not work out where I live. Hence I was asking, what kinds of legal culture shock have you picked up on in a TV show.
You aren’t explaining “your environment” well. You are being way too vague and abstract on these concepts.
the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment
This doesn’t make sense. Your “environment” not regarding a person’s choice to forego certain medical treatment sounds more like a personal preference. It’s hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason. Whether you personally agree with it or not is irrelevant to the overall environment. So the way you have approached that topic feels like it’s your opinion rather than the overall culture of your “environment”.
So can you elaborate on your “environment” and how it regards someone opting to not be resuscitated? If you want a specific, consider an elderly person with aggressive cancer along to be DNR?
It’s hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason.
Wait, really? All this hoopla over healthcare reform these days and there are people who say it shouldn’t be a given? Not invalidating you, just surprised and trying to think of it all.
So can you elaborate on your “environment”
Culture, philosophy, law, whatever you want to call it. It’s all intertwined. Every rule and every norm you live by. Imagine your part of the world. Imagine the borders, the ones where, if you step outside these borders, certain laws no longer apply. Your confusion seems to come from being adamant that it shouldn’t be a legal issue, that it’s a no-brainer. The law, sadly, does not care what should and shouldn’t be a legal issue. My last downvoter be damned, because again, their words, not mine. Anyone thinking anything here is my personal preference is not only shooting the messenger but also overthinking this, which might explain if anyone doesn’t understand it. I only have the power to let people know that, within my borders, there resides my own legal environment. A sphere with its own rules of thumb and its own ways of thinking and doing things.
The place I live in is very anti-eugenics. It’s pro-life. It’s pro-equality. It’s very medically established despite its low population. One day in school, we were talking about how, in the United Kingdom, there was a scandal where the government was putting people on one of those lists without their permission. Every debate around life and death is a gateway to another. A bureaucratic mistake can mean the difference between choice and persecution. It is then those of us who observe all of this who think “at what point does a rational, well-informed decision on the matter become one that’s not rational or well-informed”. Would a person who requests DNR who is then reckless and suffers due to it not amount to a kind of self-destruction? Would the same person be considered “murdered” if someone kills them? If someone depends on them, would it be “murdering” those people if something happened? I redirected to at least ten of these kinds of questions.
It’s not so much “abstract” as the whole topic is a blur to begin with, again hence the episode. In more ways than one, I’m just the messenger. I was really hoping the original question might be answered, not just being dedicated to questioning a small part of it. Should I just not elaborate on my questions?
It seems like there’s some disconnect here on what a DNR order is. I’m not an expert but my understanding is it’s a legal statement the patient made prior to becoming a patient defining what lengths should or shouldn’t be taking to keep them alive.
So I don’t see what that has to do with California being progressive.
When you say “omen of a shortage of therapy” it sounds like you’re maybe talking about being an organ donor?
…as opposed to self-harm?
Some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive. Cut and dry. They lump all the implications together, all the dilemmas and all the complexities that arise with the life issue. This is often associated with the law-based concepts of the Good Samaritan and the “duty to protect”. They, of course, are not mind readers and can’t look into the individual’s psyche and they resort to not taking chances. Was the person of sound mind? Were they under duress? Where do they stand between circumstantial acceptance and circumstantial yearning? Things even such as those they won’t end up guessing. Some are too afraid of what such a power can turn into, via the slippery slope trope.
The more clarification I ask for the less clarity I’m getting which is kinda disappointing because I think the original question was possibly very interesting…
😞
You say that like “some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive” might not immediately establish “alright, this society quite clearly thinks refusal of life support is a passive form of suicide”. That’s just how it is here, whether I like it or not.
