วีดีโอ

Hey thanks! I just started a few months ago.

Maybe we have different views about ethics! What do you think he should be allowed to do?

@@ValueJudgments You live up to that name 👏 First, I do think your job is very important I wouldn’t say we differ about ethics just was suggesting just like theres a 2 party political system so to an ethical spectrum ? Like I said, I’m not against your ethics as a whole I was reminded of someone close to me being in pain and alleged ethics didnt allow him many options for relief , no history of addiction but treated as such My mother is dealing with the same thing and she’s on a selfless non addicted person I know Thats just my personal examples there are more than matters of pain. Ethics should have a compassionate mother and a struct father maybe🧐

@@Rawnervscope Sorry to hear that. There's definitely a problem now with providers withholding pain relief even when prescribing it is justified. I've also had cases of families wanting to deny fentanyl for their loved one because they're worried about addiction, even though the person is going to die within a week. And there's absolutely an ethics spectrum. I by no means speak for the entire profession in these videos.

It's useful to have an understanding of normative ethics, including Kant, but the details of any particular historical view aren't going to play a main role. Part of the value is just knowing that terms like 'autonomy' and 'dignity' are used in different ways. In my own work, I've gotten more mileage out of Mill, in part because so many people bring up the harm principle. They rarely come up in any direct way, however. If you're interested in bioethics research, then the theory foundation is much more important. Whichever you choose, getting a grasp of deontology, consequentialism, egalitarianism, liberalism, feminism, and other views is worthwhile. I'm going to make a video about books at some point. Here are a couple I like: - www.amazon.com/Medical-Ethics-Law-curriculum-Century/dp/0702075965 - The ASBH bundle: asbh.org/resources/books The actual practice of clinical ethics is hard to get from a book, so it's worthwhile to focus on getting familiar with the theory and case studies.

I'm sorry to hear that your family has had so many health issues. There's an important medical question about why this might have happened in your family members' cases that a physician is better suited to answer. In the cases I've seen, doctors will only use a medically induced coma to prevent severe brain injury once the other options have failed. The decision happens really fast. "Fighting the ventilator" typically means extreme agitation: the patient suddenly sits upright, her skin starts turning blue, she's sweating and clearly distressed. It's a sign that something is seriously wrong. Since a coma is a last resort, if there's organ failure, reversing the coma either isn't possible-there has been too much brain damage-or too harmful for the patient. The decision about continuing or stopping ventilation is in part an ethical one. They need to be on the ventilator to get oxygen, which is why removing it causes them to die. Again, I'm not sure what happened to your family members, but the most common situation is that a patient is deteriorating so much that the ventilator is no longer benefiting him in a meaningful way. Because of the medical situation and other factors, like pain management, taking them out of the coma isn't possible. I absolutely agree that these are heart-wrenching decisions for a family to make. Even when people believe that removing the ventilator is the best option, making that decision for a loved one can be extremely difficult.

Thanks! I'll take a look at those.

And they wear masks! I have a correction in the info about the location. I screwed that up!

This is definitely a key part of the debate. I say that not using the word 'placebo' *might* be okay and that it depends on one's interpretation of informed consent. As I discuss, the way to address this is to use an open-label placebo. This is a good way of making sure you don't get a placebo you don't want. Thanks for watching!

But they do have nurses.

I'm glad you found it helpful!

I've had a couple cases like this. I'll make a video about it. Stay tuned!

Same here cos he’s the best.

Thanks. I have a correction in the description.

Thanks for watching!

The episode with actor Joel Gray was another. He was dying regardless, six months to live. DNR. But he had something new and House wanted to know what it was. House put something in his iv saying it would kill him, but actually he was giving him something to cause a coma. Then he ran tests etc until he found out what it was. WOKE THE PATIENT UP to tell him. And then did an assisted death. Joel Gray won an emmy award.

It's extremely unlikely that this would happen in a hospital. The procedure is to call a code blue, at which point physicians and nurses from the unit would come to the room. They would all know that the patient is DNR. Some hospitals have other signs for staff, like a different coloured bracelet or a sign on the wall. It's possible that a patient could be wandering around the hospital and collapse, so someone nearby begins resuscitation without realizing the patient is DNR. My guess about the law in most places is that beginning resuscitation if you don't know the patient is DNR is legally fine (not legal advice though!). Mistakes are more common on long-term care homes and prisons. Here's a story about staff at a care home failing to resuscitate a resident because they thought she was DNR (it was actually her roommate). The family has sued: www.courant.com/2024/03/27/a-ct-woman-died-in-a-care-center-her-family-says-it-was-due-to-error-in-do-not-resuscitate-order/

@ValueJudgments thank you for that amazingly detailed explanation. I worked as a security guard in a hospital for 6 years and was always fascinated by the medical field. But unfortunately, most of my questions like this weren't taken seriously when I asked them. I often was given "that couldn't happen" or "that's a stupid question" with no explanation. So again, thank you for the detailed response explanation and article for reference.

@@smithysforge5309 That's a tough job. You're a legend for doing that work. I bet you have a lot of stories! I just found this case of basically what you were asking about. A nurse found a patient unresponsive, the code blue team arrived, there was confusion about his code status, so they began resuscitation and he was resuscitated before they confirmed he was DNR. He won $400,000 in a lawsuit. www.physiciansweekly.com/jury-awards-400000-in-wrongful-prolongation-of-life-lawsuit/#:~:text=The%20estate%20of%20Rodney%20Knoepfle,DNI%5D%20during%20a%202016%20hospitalization.

@ValueJudgments haha well thank you for saying that, and you're right. I've got quite a few stories, some good, some bad, some head scratchers and some that I still laugh about to this day. This article is a very interesting read. I can honestly say I've always struggled with the concept of lawsuits against doctors or hospitals in these types of situations. Seems there's there's both a fine and hard line when it comes to this. For example, if a guy is driving and gets into a horrible wreck and the EMS crew that shows up just reacts and resuscitated him. But he had a DNR then they could potentially be in danger of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the legal field of medicine seems to be quite the mine field

Is that why House won't return my requests for comment!?

@@ValueJudgments, oh, I get it… …you think a lot of viewers think it’s real.

@@JimCGamesit’s more of a analysis of fiction, ya know, a human past time since we first started telling stories. That being said, this man isn’t ethical, he’s just really good at following the legal guidelines. Ethics aren’t the same as laws.

@@milewesler9592, “…analysis of fiction…”? Is it? When you say this and that isn’t so? You’re imposing reality onto “fiction”. fiction /fĭk′shən/ noun The category of literature, drama, film, or other creative work whose content is imagined and is not necessarily based on fact. I watch programs all the time and see things that don’t coincide with reality, except when they want it to. For instance, all the millions and millions of retail outlets with cameras and yet crimes go on in these areas and police never have the inclination to look for such videos. Even when they occur inside these establishments, it’s the same thing. Or how about when on NCIS they storm into a building without first obtaining a warrant. They knew where they were going ahead of time, and yet they never sought a warrant. They come upon their destination, immediately arm themselves and start maneuvering around the building ready to rush inside and take down the villain. Yeah, we’re so set on all the details of fiction and these programs persist and nobody bats an eye. Why? Because it’s fiction!

@@milewesler9592, it’s an author’s work. If these people are so set on inserting every nuance of reality into fiction, I think they should go write their own screenplays. Fiction doesn’t always work if you go to that extreme because the author is trying to bring about specific scenarios to further the drama within it that can’t otherwise evolve upon such insistence.

Ethically speaking, sure. Suppose at this point in the episode that the doctors knew for sure that Giles didn't have ALS and that the new treatment was simple, but they accidentally gave him medication that stopped his heart. If fGiles said that he was only requesting the DNR based on his belief that he was likely to die soon, and this turns out to be false, resuscitation could be justified. But House has nothing like that kind of evidence when he resuscitates him. A DNR order is a medical order made by the healthcare provider in charge, but patients can refuse interventions for whatever reason they want. The bar for valid refusal is lower than the bar for informed consent, so Giles could say, "I don't even want to go to the hospital", which is his right. His decision might be uninformed or unjustified, but that wouldn't give doctors the right to treat him against his will. I'm not sure what a lawyer would say about this kind of case. Maybe I can talk LegalEagle into a collaboration one day!

Ughhhh.

All my points about what he should or shouldn't do are about ethics. Since the law and ethics overlap for DNRs, I include the legal points at no extra charge. Clinical ethicists tell people what the law says in cases where it's clear-cut, but you're right that the law and ethics sometimes come apart. In those cases, I'm clear that my recommendation differs from the law, so they should consult a lawyer and they have to decide what they want to prioritize. Cases like this are pretty rare, but it's somewhat more common for the law to be silent or ambiguous on an issue.

@@ValueJudgmentsheavy semantic use to avoid the reality. The same concept would fall under the good samaritan act in the case of a attempted suicide. Same moral dillema, but the legal red tape is on your side as opposed to against you. Don’t say they overlap when there are clear lines drawn

So because he's an ethicist he can't talk about law? So much for categorialism and transdisciplinarity.

@@musical_lolu4811 if you can't separate ethics from law than you're not much of a ethicist are you

Thanks! I'll check it out.

Sure! Thanks for letting me know!

It's definitely another layer!

House constantly gets extremely lucky after nearly killing his patients with his wild theories. The fact he often gets them right in the end is a narrative convenience so that all his team's effort and diagnosis are justified. A doctor who actually "heard hoof beats and thought zebras instead of horses" would and went about treatment as recklessly as he does would almost certainly kill many more patients.

@@CharlieQuartz it's a show...... And yeah he's teaching his collies how to work even though half of the time he ends up helping them or half of the time he already knows what's the symptom he just making them work.....good 👍

It certainly makes for better television.

People like people who can see past rules and red tape and do the right thing regardless

Shoot! You're right. House trivia fail on my part. Assisted dying is legal in New Jersey, but it requires being likely to die within six months, so John Henry Giles still wouldn't qualify.

Thanks! Will do!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks!

Lord help us!

Probably the very most unethical, other than evil scientists. But the writers would give him the win all the time, of course.

Also modest and humble!