|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 9, 2006 17:28:43 GMT -5
I don't think that Jack would really let Ben die. He is, technically, in violation of his oath already, of course, because he's done harm to Ben's kidney, but - that would be true if he punched someone, too, and did harm to their face. To me, his action is basically an act of defense against aggressors, and a very controlled one, at that. I think Jack did the smart thing. He can't save himself, but he can try to save his friends (and in fact, he did save Sawyer) . . . which could lead to him being saved as well. Actually... I was all set to post about how the Hippocratic Oath only applies to the care of patients, so Jack would be free to punch someone in the face, so long as they weren't his patient (which I still believe to be the case). But I thought I ought to read the actual oath, first, to be sure. Turns out "First, do no harm" is not part of the Oath at all, and never was. Here's the original: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.htmlAnd there are several modern versions, since the original isn't used anymore. Here's one: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.htmlOh, and here's a site that has both, plus the bit about where "no harm" comes from: www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.htmlMost interesting. Thanks, Rachael. This in particular: " Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject..." Jack's life, and the lives of Sawyer and Kate are certainly in imminent danger. I wonder if he's applying this part of his oath to the current situation. Anne, wondering idly what oath atheist doctors take
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 9, 2006 17:38:02 GMT -5
I don't think that Jack would really let Ben die. He is, technically, in violation of his oath already, of course, because he's done harm to Ben's kidney, but - that would be true if he punched someone, too, and did harm to their face. To me, his action is basically an act of defense against aggressors, and a very controlled one, at that. I think Jack did the smart thing. He can't save himself, but he can try to save his friends (and in fact, he did save Sawyer) . . . which could lead to him being saved as well. Actually... I was all set to post about how the Hippocratic Oath only applies to the care of patients, so Jack would be free to punch someone in the face, so long as they weren't his patient (which I still believe to be the case). But I thought I ought to read the actual oath, first, to be sure. Turns out "First, do no harm" is not part of the Oath at all, and never was. Here's the original: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.htmlAnd there are several modern versions, since the original isn't used anymore. Here's one: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.htmlOh, and here's a site that has both, plus the bit about where "no harm" comes from: www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.htmlInteresting - thanks for posting this. For me, it comes down to whether Jack's choice was a moral choice for a doctor to make - and yes, I'm OK with it. Whether someone is a patient or not, whatever any oath may say, people have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. To me, that's what Jack is doing - in a controlled, minimalizaton of harm kinda way. (I'm assuming he's bluffing on the letting Ben die thing - I don't think he would.) And he's putting himself in considerable danger while doing it, to boot. I'm definitely on the "good on you, Jack" boat on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 9, 2006 17:42:47 GMT -5
Actually... I was all set to post about how the Hippocratic Oath only applies to the care of patients, so Jack would be free to punch someone in the face, so long as they weren't his patient (which I still believe to be the case). But I thought I ought to read the actual oath, first, to be sure. Turns out "First, do no harm" is not part of the Oath at all, and never was. Here's the original: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.htmlAnd there are several modern versions, since the original isn't used anymore. Here's one: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.htmlOh, and here's a site that has both, plus the bit about where "no harm" comes from: www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.htmlInteresting - thanks for posting this. For me, it comes down to whether Jack's choice was a moral choice for a doctor to make - and yes, I'm OK with it. Whether someone is a patient or not, whatever any oath may say, people have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. To me, that's what Jack is doing - in a controlled, minimalizaton of harm kinda way. (I'm assuming he's bluffing on the letting Ben die thing - I don't think he would.) And he's putting himself in considerable danger while doing it, to boot. I'm definitely on the "good on you, Jack" boat on this one. This, right here, is the great thing about the S'cubie collective intelligence - I started out thinking Jack was doing something completely wrong, and there was discussion, and there was research, and now it looks like maybe he's got a plan, and it maybe, just maybe might be allowed under his oath as a surgeon, and it might even work. See also my post, just above Spring's. I do love me my S'cubies. #grouphug#
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Nov 9, 2006 17:49:15 GMT -5
From watching what he was doing, I don't think he did anything to the kidney, directly: I don't think he cut through the renal capsule. That would NOT cause the drastic and immediate loss in blood pressure, I don't think. I think he clamped off the right renal vein and then cut open the renal artery between the clamp and the aorta. THAT would cause the immediate loss in blood pressure and the rapid bleeding.
BUT that decrease in blood pressure can just as surely screw up the left kidney: on that he's not lying: too long at too low a blood pressure and they're shot. And there's the whole "bleeding out" factor. But I do think it's something Juliet could fix, if need be, though I think she's playing along with him.
(plaintively) Is there a nephrologist in the house?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 9, 2006 17:54:22 GMT -5
Actually... I was all set to post about how the Hippocratic Oath only applies to the care of patients, so Jack would be free to punch someone in the face, so long as they weren't his patient (which I still believe to be the case). But I thought I ought to read the actual oath, first, to be sure. Turns out "First, do no harm" is not part of the Oath at all, and never was. Here's the original: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.htmlAnd there are several modern versions, since the original isn't used anymore. Here's one: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.htmlOh, and here's a site that has both, plus the bit about where "no harm" comes from: www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.htmlMost interesting. Thanks, Rachael. This in particular: " Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject..." Jack's life, and the lives of Sawyer and Kate are certainly in imminent danger. I wonder if he's applying this part of his oath to the current situation. Anne, wondering idly what oath atheist doctors take Yes, nice research and good thinking about that research. Yes, in my mind anyhow, Jack can surely be seen as trying to "correct an imminent danger." He had every reason to believe he and his friends are in terrible danger in the custody of The Others, and of course, he was very right - the danger to Sawyer being even more imminent than Jack realized. He saved Sawyer. He only minimally damaged Ben, in a deliberate way that he knows he can fix at will. Ben is in no pain, and he's nowhere near dead, and Jack can easily save him. It's ingenius. Where's the bad? Of course, we could easily get an unexpected answer to this question next week, 'cause anything can happen in this show. This is the part I like. Talking about the characters and thier motivations and make-up and such. I must agree with Anne - S'cubie-talk good!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 9, 2006 17:55:40 GMT -5
From watching what he was doing, I don't think he did anything to the kidney, directly: I don't think he cut through the renal capsule. That would NOT cause the drastic and immediate loss in blood pressure, I don't think. I think he clamped off the right renal vein and then cut open the renal artery between the clamp and the aorta. THAT would cause the immediate loss in blood pressure and the rapid bleeding. BUT that decrease in blood pressure can just as surely screw up the left kidney: on that he's not lying: too long at too low a blood pressure and they're shot. And there's the whole "bleeding out" factor. But I do think it's something Juliet could fix, if need be, though I think she's playing along with him. (plaintively) Is there a nephrologist in the house? On the Juliet thing, Jack knows that even if she can fix it, she's not going to say so. So he's safe on that score.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 9, 2006 18:34:15 GMT -5
LOL! Yeah - there'd be a mass exodus of viewership if they offed Sawyer. I just don't know about Kate and Sawyer. Sawyer asked her if she meant it when she told the Others that she loved him, or if she just did it to save his live. She didn't say anything - just kissed him, which spoke volumes. I think she loves Jack. I thought it said "I do" to Sawyer. Hard to say for sure, but I took her kiss as her Kate-way of telling Sawyer she loved him. At first, I did, too, and for sure Sawyer took her kiss as a "yes". (or it could've been wishful thinking on his part) But then comparing how she was with Nathan/Kevin - whom she really did love, she didn't have any problem voicing those words, so why would she have a problem saying them to Sawyer, if she really meant it?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 9, 2006 19:10:18 GMT -5
found this tidbit in lj land, re: the new message on Eko's Jesus Stick: And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;. Genesis 13:14 Here's a link to the text surrounding the verse: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=13&version=50
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 9, 2006 19:15:37 GMT -5
I thought it said "I do" to Sawyer. Hard to say for sure, but I took her kiss as her Kate-way of telling Sawyer she loved him. At first, I did, too, and for sure Sawyer took her kiss as a "yes". (or it could've been wishful thinking on his part) But then comparing how she was with Nathan/Kevin - whom she really did love, she didn't have any problem voicing those words, so why would she have a problem saying them to Sawyer, if she really meant it? My thought on this is that Kate & Sawyer are at the beginning of the relationship, and Sawyer, at that point, hasn't said "I love you" yet, and Kate - I can see her having trouble being the first one to say it, and taking her time getting to the point of being able to say it. Also, I suspect she's a different person now, than she was then, when it comes to making herself vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 9, 2006 19:23:56 GMT -5
found this tidbit in lj land, re: the new message on Eko's Jesus Stick: And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;. Genesis 13:14 Here's a link to the text surrounding the verse: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=13&version=50Hmm...I wonder if this means we'll see a splitting of our group.
|
|
|
Post by Pixi on Nov 10, 2006 12:51:47 GMT -5
Hmm - thanks Sara, Anne and others for all the input on the "Did Jack do something wrong?" issue.
I think everyone is making a good argument for their decision, with strong reasoning to back it up. I still have problems with it as I honestly think that Dr. McCoy would never have done this. And he's my doctor hero and will always be. I mean I love watching House and enjoy Laurie's performance immensely but I grew up steeped in Star Trek and I always admired the way that the bottom line for Leonard McCoy was always to treat the patient no matter what it cost him.
I do see everyone's reasoning though and it's quite intelligent. I'm a rebel in all my shows this week. Must be something in my stars. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 10, 2006 15:17:52 GMT -5
found this tidbit in lj land, re: the new message on Eko's Jesus Stick: And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;. Genesis 13:14 Here's a link to the text surrounding the verse: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=13&version=50 Hmm...I wonder if this means we'll see a splitting of our group. You mean, because we are disagreeing about Jack? We've weathered worse - - oh wait. You mean the characters! Hard to say. Reading the passage, it feels like it could go either way (suggesting they will splinter, suggesting they might unite).
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 10, 2006 15:20:29 GMT -5
Hmm - thanks Sara, Anne and others for all the input on the "Did Jack do something wrong?" issue. I think everyone is making a good argument for their decision, with strong reasoning to back it up. I still have problems with it as I honestly think that Dr. McCoy would never have done this. And he's my doctor hero and will always be. I mean I love watching House and enjoy Laurie's performance immensely but I grew up steeped in Star Trek and I always admired the way that the bottom line for Leonard McCoy was always to treat the patient no matter what it cost him. I do see everyone's reasoning though and it's quite intelligent. I'm a rebel in all my shows this week. Must be something in my stars. ;D I must agree that Dr McCoy would never have done what Jack did. He was a different sort of guy, and the show was a different sort of show. I think we're meant to be debating the morality of Jack's choice - it's gray and not black-and-white, and I think there are intelligent, legit arguments to be made for seeing it as anything from reprehensible to heroic.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Nov 10, 2006 18:42:45 GMT -5
So, apparently their captors provided Kate with the appropriate foundation garment for that shirt. 'Cause she was wearing a bra...and not one you could see. And here I was just figuring she was braless. On a serious note...I'm sitting here thinking, "Why would they want to kill Sawyer? Makes no sense." You know, from an experiment standpoint. The answer I came up with was - they don't. They keep forcing them to tell one another how they feel. Or how they (the Others) think they feel. "You got anything to say to your girl," etc. Plus, you KNOW they have surveillance on those cages, and yet no one stops Kate wandering about. Clearly it's just another experiment. Doesn't mean they won't kill him.... *nods* It's all mind-games all the time with them, or at least virtually all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Nov 10, 2006 18:43:59 GMT -5
Oh, and hey - this ep was exciting. Even if the plot moved only minutely. I'm cranky about the three-month hiatus, though. Tell me about it. They're gonna get this thing going in high gear completely next week, (based on the previews) and then . . . looooong wait.
|
|