@@raykazmi8521 bold of you to assume that they wouldn't work together and just completely decimate anything/anyone on the receiving end of their insults
@@JAEratt13 they can't pin down when case 0 occurred to less than a 3 month period and you think they know the method of transmission from bat to person with any greater certainly.....
The thing is people think House will be able to cure it just because he's House. No, he just figures out what it is and if it's curabe. He can find it's cancer but not treat it if it's not treatable yet...
I can see how the cast is responding optimistically rather than dull manner, and that House isn't too irrational and harsh, the OG squad is here, and everybody looks young.
@@sayuh5254 Exactly, taking them both off of the same antibiotic means there's 50% chance they both lose kidney function. Taking them off one antibiotic means 100% one loses it, knowingly in order to aid other 5 patients. This whole video is the railroad situation.
@@MrShroomed That is why House's principle comes in. He doesn't give a damn about the patient i.e. not getting attached to them at all :/ Hence he condemned both to solve puzzles not lives
I agree with you all however I think that taking them off antibiotic #1 makes some sense as they are only taking it for 1 possible condition. There's a 75% chance of success that way for both kids. However the 1 and 1 solution does condemn one child if youre right about the condition and isn't guaranteed a success (or I suppose failure) for either child if you're wrong. However as it could be a pandemic, the lives of two children weighed against 10+ means that this decision of house's is worth it because it serves a diagnostic purpose that could help more children. Neat little philosophical/moral dilemma though.
@@justin9202 and though his puzzle bending was great, he still had a lot to argue with the political elements. But I believe, he’s mean enough to save the world.
One of the rare shows where when the main character is thinking, it's just showing him thinking without any visual representations of their thought processes through medical diagrams of anatomy or studies.
@@Bigmojojo How? they were very little they couldn't handle both antibiotics, they were harming their kidneys, it would have killed them or harm their kidneys notjust of one baby but all of them
And the subtle way that he shows he cares. He rationalizes it, but he cares about Cuddy enough to understand why she takes it personally that there’s an epidemic in the hospital.
@@phastinemoon In future episodes we see how House treats people and babies differently. House hates people because people lie, pretend, and do other things that he knows causes issues. However when it comes to babies who are not incapable of doing anything he has a different approach. During one episode a mother is suffocating her baby in the hospital, House drops his cane and even hops as fast as he can to go save the baby, and even begins to give CPR.
That lawyer was short-sighted as hell. If House actually did what the lawyer told him, nobody would consent, babies would be dropping like flies, and the hospital would be facing a WAY WORSE legal case than just the one.
Its not condemning one to death by random chance, but rather condemning one to live by random chance. Instead of the random chance that both will die if they guess wrong, one will get better if it is one of the two.
No, I think he got it right the first time. Sacrificing one to save not only the other, but also the two that weren't experiencing kidney failure. This "trial" as House called it saved three lives.
@@redwall1521 Yeah, but the issue is that it is morally wrong. Thats why house is brilliant, because he ignores what people say is "ethically" correct and saves lives
MisterSmith I don’t it should be considered morally wrong, would it be more morally correct to treat them both exactly the same and then have them both die?
I was injured when I was a teenager. While I was comatose the doctors came to my family to ask for permission to try different routes of treatment for my brainstem injury. Thankfully, my mother was a registured nurse who specialized in intensive care work.... She was there to explain the details of every decision to my father, as well as the benefits or hazards of each decision, Thankfully they apparently made all the right ones... I woke up 10 days later! :-D
@@DaneOrschlovsky I do know of one woman who was not so fortunate as I was though.... She lacked that good-thinking /thoughtful help.... She too eagerly jumped at the chance of lobe ectomy surgery to cure her epileptic seizures. Well, she must still continue to take just as much medicine as she did before.... But she also must wear a padded helmet whenever she is out of her bed.... and the frontal /center lobe surgery messed up her emotions, so now she is hard to control her good and bad moods. It seems so pitiful what happened to her.... Just because she did not have a clear minded parent beside her to ask the proper questions in the doctor's office. :'(
The irony when they condemn him for “flipping the coin” is had they done it the other way they still would’ve flipped the coin and they both would’ve died if they picked wrong.
I think this is one of, if not the one, my favorites episodes. The whole episode is quite serious and the banter and jokes aren't distracting the doctors of their duty.
Infants are never at fault for the things they have and they also don't lie to House - so they are in a way innocent and not stupid, which House respects
i actually feel sorry for house in this episode, that's not an easy decision to make. but he knows it's the only decision. if he took all the babies off the same meds they could ALL die
What Foreman is basically saying: "You're going to do what I was suggesting except better?" Yes, Foreman, he is indeed going to let one child die instead of the chance of both of them dying.
100% chance that 1 will die and they will know the cause so they can prevent other deaths VS 50% both live/die but wont know the cause. i pick the 1st choice.
People that are not related to a patient CANNOT know about another patient's treatment/health because that's a HIPPA violation. Telling house to tell both parents about the other's treatment is illegal by itself. What kind of lawyer is he?🤦♂️
Actually, this made the most sense. Imagine the situation where something else besides the antibiotics caused the problem. If you take both kids off one and still die of kidney failure, this would lead you to believe the other antiobiotic should work when in truth it was the other factor and now you need another baby to find out the 2nd antibiotic wasn't going to help either. If you give a different antibiotic to both kids, this possibility of a hidden problem would show up as both would still worsen, giving you more information. This was the right choice.
Yep, that's what happened. It wasn't a bacteria, it was a virus. They went bacteria route mostly because antibiotics could was a great and easy treatment. If it would be a virus, kids would have much less chances to be treated. Like, they would die anyway. Which some of them did...
The right choice, yes. The moral choice, no. Personally, I agree and would probably do the same thing but if the parents found out then you could expect a lawsuit. It’s a fine line.
@@kaylizzie7890 there is no such thing as an objective "morally good" choice. Morality is a spectrum. House made the logical best choice which is what's important.
I don't understand why they're so offended by his plan to trial each patient with a different medication. They literally were trying to do the same thing, randomly guessing which medication is the problem and then waiting for them to either get better or for every one of them to die of the infection. The only difference is House is limiting variance. And variance is not something you want in a life or death situation.
Stomach flu? I assumed she was a carrier or else it was very mild for an adult. But stomach flu can't be in a hospital, I worked in a restaurant and anything affecting stomach is a huge no no for at least 48 hrs. Only knew one manager to twist the rule.
“ I defer to you legal wisdom, which takes precedent six dying babies or a missing consent form?” Such a great episode this and DNR as well as some great early episodes show I think House at his best as the kind of person he is where I’d say the new team is more about deconstructing House and the the post rehab is new House and post Cuddy is a bit of a mess
He isn't condemning one child to die. He is letting the other one live with the rest of the possible victims. It is rational choice that brings the benefit to majority of patients.
It wasn't a nurse or a janitor. It was a elderly volunteer who made handmade teddy bears for the sick babies. They didn't think about her because she only came to the hospital every so often with more teddies to hand out.
"You're condemning one of these kids to die base on random chance." - Foreman isn't this stupid. His way, either the kids are both saved, or they both die. His way potentially condemns both to death, based on random chance. How is that better?
What did that lawyer mean by "They have to know another patient is getting a different treatment."? Like hell they do! Doesn't that break Doctor Patient confidentiallity? No one has the right to know what someone else is getting.
It doesnt break confidentiallity because they are not saying who the other patients ARE. If im at the hospital needing medicine i hope i am on the same medicine as other people like me
I think it's one of those tricky ethical grey areas. Doctor'ing itself often involves "harming" patients to heal them (scalpels and needles) so the reason you let doctors do it, is because of that assumption they are harming in the short term to heal in the long term... ... However, the decision to take the baby off the drug that will save its life is a harmful decision with no pay off *for that patient*. It helps *others*, but in the same way you can't randomly take an organ out of patient A to save patient B without the consent of A (or A's family).
House is right though - it's already a random chance. If it's already going to be a completely random guess, you might as well use it to your advantage to figure out the cause. That is not to mention that in this situation you are at worst case scenario loosing only one kid, while if you randomly guess you are loosing both and still aren't closer to figuring out if it's actually the antibiotics.
@@NewbInLife Issue is it would have been put up to chance for all of them surviving or all of them dying, here, you are putting a baby to death no matter what
Have you noticed that, early seasons he take the reins in the diagnostic process, but later on the series , he let's his team brainstorm and become more involved. In his way, he's trying to teach than control. He's been trying to let others have more opportunities to be better than him and express critical thinking as he does.
Except, the math in this case doesn't work like that. Suppose there are 10 babies with the same disease. Scenario 1- You give 2 of them different treatments and only 1 survives while the other 8 survive. That's a sure shot 90% success rate. Scenario 2- You give them both the same treatment. In this case either both die and the other 8 survive or no one dies. So, there was actually a 50% chance that all 10 live or a 50% chance that 8 out of 10 live. It would mathematically make more sense to take that chance. So, in my opinion, house was wrong.
@@kritav1111 Another angle is the simple fact that continuing as they were pretty much guaranteed both would die anyway; changing it could mean: 1. Perhaps both die anyway, because wrong treatment or too late. 2. Perhaps both survive because not killing their kidneys meant they got through it ok; or because they have time to treat the other one once they have more information. It's partly about *not* knowingly allowing the first two to die without *trying* to figure it out, which definitely seems wrong to me, even if the legal or "moral" arguments point that way (the horror of the lawyer's part in this).
5:00 Reminds me of this quote from "The imitation Game" Peter: _"You’re not God, Alan. You don’t get to decide who lives and who dies."_ Alan: _"Yes, we do."_ Peter: _"Why?"_ Alan: _"Because no one else can."_
I mean looking at it efficiently, you've got 4 babies. You need to save as many as you can, because that's how medicine works. So you either flip a coin to decide which antibiotic to take them all off of, and that's a 50-50 shot of all living or all dying. OR you pick 2, take 1 off of each, then when one gets worse you'll know which is the safe choice and you'll be saving 3 if you can't help the last one in time. Guaranteed 3 or a Coin Toss of All dead or All living. Easy choice to me.
When I was studying Dialog (think of it as an early version of Google, dedicated to science) our teacher brought in a If/then/not program ("plain language" not DOS or any other programming language) that could take doctors through a process to decide which bacteria were causing an infection. All known bacteria, all known possible patient symptoms, all possible (at that time) known tests. Fascinating. I hadn't realized diagnosing a bacterial infection could be so complicated.
Back when House's genuine moments weren't upended by him being a post-jump-the-shark buffoon in the next scene. It's weird to see him be serious and genuine.
3:24 this is what I do on exams, I know certain answers are right, they show up on multiple questions, if I pick the same answer for both questions I at least get one right rather guessing and getting both wrong
If someone made a special Covid-19 episode/movie of House, the ratings would be through the fucking roof. Hey Neflix/Hulu or even that new Peacock channel.. make it happen!
"You're condemning one based on random chance?". Well, if you choose to leave both on the same medicine, you're still risking condemning them both based on random chance. Assuming that one of the drugs will net a positive result, it's a choice of between one kid certainly dying and one kid certainly living versus both kids having a 50-50 chance to die. Statistically, both situations force you to take a random chance, and both have the same expected outcome, but Houses way gives you more information you can use for the other kids (i.e. the reactions to two drugs individually). Houses solution could also expose the fact that neither of the chosen drugs work, which you can't learn with "keep both kids on the same drug" strategy.
This episode was one of the few that hit me closest to home. My baby boy was born litterally just as Wuhan was locking down so I worried about him a lot
What would House do during an epidemic? He'd stay home because there's no mystery. He'd probably have something snarky to say about people wearing masks, using copious amounts of sanitizer, etc.
Defer treatments to experimental research facility with the statement that the hospital has done all it can within the legal framework and patient care of doing no harm. It happens to cancer patients all the time. That, parents will sign off on.
4:38 isn’t House legally right even though his argument isn’t? 1 patient has no right to the treatment information of another, even if both are convinced they have similar conditions
As long as the other patient isn't personally identified there's no breach. And in fact what you'd probably do is go to each parent individually and ask each of them to consent to information sharing as part of the treatment process and they'd probably agree.
Scott Matheson but the lawyer is arguing 1 patient is entitled to the treatment information of another without either agreeing to anything yet; not sure what the lawyer is basing this on
"It's always MRSA in hospitals" a statement said by a doctor who is an internist and a neurologist to another doctor who is supposed to be an ID consultant and they acted like he came up with something that's not a very obvious thing to say. God it sucks to watch House as a doctor ☹️. I miss seeing it when i was in high school.
Part of the "House MO" is that *someone* has to raise the obvious so that either he can dismiss it (usually) or (sometimes) they can treat it. And even in a "zebra" case there's no reason the patient couldn't have an existing "obvious" condition too (which they may as well treat).
The worst thing about house as a doc is his team doing all the different procedures that in real life would be done by different specialists eg colonoscopy, etc.
I'm sure this can be the case with medical fiction in general, but for the sake of this particular clip, I'll focus on House specifically. People have pointed out the inaccuracies and the liberties it takes with actual medical fact/procedure, and based on what I've read over the years, those in the medical field often struggle (or in some cases are completely unable) to overlook these issues. You mentioned in your comment that you're an RN, so I'm gonna assume you have more knowledge than the average joe when it comes to medicine lol. Just out of curiosity, do you have the same issue, or are you able to let certain things slide? I find it interesting to know what actual medical professionals think of works of fiction like this.
It’s true that about half the hand gel dispensers are empty or broken 😂 My hands would get so dry on my internal medicine rotations during med school cause so many hand washings before and after each room during rounds (ps I just started a channel about medicine, check it out pls)
This man could insult Covid out of existence
Nah bring Gordon ramsey for that
@@oussamamabrouk5273 "This elderly man is so healthy he is not even coughing!GET OUT!"
quack quack when it comes to insults house can destroy Ramsey without raising a decibel
@@raykazmi8521 bold of you to assume that they wouldn't work together and just completely decimate anything/anyone on the receiving end of their insults
Imagine House on Hell's Kitchen
House would dismiss covid cases as boring and go find someone with mercury poisoning from a pig or something
I wish I could go wherever ur profile pic is :( can u take me, Steven? CAN YOU
He'd love the original case: "Man get's sick from eating bat". That's right up House's alley.
@@JAEratt13 they can't pin down when case 0 occurred to less than a 3 month period and you think they know the method of transmission from bat to person with any greater certainly.....
I mean... that does sound kinda interesting
The thing is people think House will be able to cure it just because he's House. No, he just figures out what it is and if it's curabe. He can find it's cancer but not treat it if it's not treatable yet...
You can tell immidiately if it's a clip from the first season by the weird yellow lighting lol
I did not see any lightning (or hear any thunder).
And the cast
@@Well_I_am_just_saying Yeah lol meant lighting.
I can see how the cast is responding optimistically rather than dull manner, and that House isn't too irrational and harsh, the OG squad is here, and everybody looks young.
Well, and the 4:3 gives a hint
House is always good at social distancing. He keeps everyone away except Wilson and Cuddy.
@@isaiahmilde I see what you did there...
@@isaiahmilde I understood that reference
He knew how to push Wilson too.
Despite it was brief, what about when Dr. Cameron was a love interest?
Social distancing is the one thing I like about the pandemic. Too many people crowding me makes me want to scream.
"So you're condemning one of these kids to die based on random chance?"
As if guessing which antibiotic is causing the kidney failure is any different
Thank you!
Nah it's worse, since it's both you can condemn.
@@sayuh5254 Exactly, taking them both off of the same antibiotic means there's 50% chance they both lose kidney function.
Taking them off one antibiotic means 100% one loses it, knowingly in order to aid other 5 patients.
This whole video is the railroad situation.
@@MrShroomed That is why House's principle comes in. He doesn't give a damn about the patient i.e. not getting attached to them at all :/ Hence he condemned both to solve puzzles not lives
I agree with you all however I think that taking them off antibiotic #1 makes some sense as they are only taking it for 1 possible condition. There's a 75% chance of success that way for both kids. However the 1 and 1 solution does condemn one child if youre right about the condition and isn't guaranteed a success (or I suppose failure) for either child if you're wrong. However as it could be a pandemic, the lives of two children weighed against 10+ means that this decision of house's is worth it because it serves a diagnostic purpose that could help more children. Neat little philosophical/moral dilemma though.
“When the world needed him the most he vanished”
The world doesn't need another diagnostician right now.
@@smurfyday r/wooooooooosh
The best crossover doesn't exis-
100 years passed my brother and I discovered the new house, a surgeon named chang.
@@justin9202 and though his puzzle bending was great, he still had a lot to argue with the political elements. But I believe, he’s mean enough to save the world.
“your daughters kidneys are shutting dow-“
*video gets cuts off*
Me: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT-
death
@@bodya1337-p9x mmmbybeheading....
One of the babies die
They find out it was a viral infection after the autopsy
It was spread by the old lady who brings toys to the new borns
Video shut down
One kid dies. One kid lives.
House: Some of you may die but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Commander Cthulhu 🤣
I confused that quote for General Grevious's
I thought it was Hedley Lamar.
Would probably send Chase and Team to Wuhan for samples and clues
Also have Cameron sit and moan about everything
More like break into Wuhan to take samples. Seriously, what's the difference between breaking into a city or a house? It's just a matter of scale. :)
He would have Foreman break into the CCP office
@@mixrable1212 That would be some serious Jason Bourne ability.
Break in to china too
One of the rare shows where when the main character is thinking, it's just showing him thinking without any visual representations of their thought processes through medical diagrams of anatomy or studies.
"So you're condemning one of these kids to die based on random chance?"
As opposed to condemning them all based on random chance, yes Foreman.
Who is to say that EITHER treatment will work?
BenjaminFranklin99 Because its House
@ What choice did he have?
@@leirelarrakoetxea5747 come up with a better script that has both babies surviving
@@Bigmojojo How? they were very little they couldn't handle both antibiotics, they were harming their kidneys, it would have killed them or harm their kidneys notjust of one baby but all of them
What would House do in a Pandemic...
Me: _Assemble the old team back and give foreman hair?_
Bless the person still uploading these clips
Amen 🙌
Epidemic is not the same as pandemic, poor editing, sorry.
He would be playing with his gameboy, watching hospital soap operas and missing those monster truck live shows...
0:40 this is such a season 1 moment, House cracking a joke and his team genuinely laughing at it
yeah and also combined with how more professional House is. I really like season 1
And the subtle way that he shows he cares.
He rationalizes it, but he cares about Cuddy enough to understand why she takes it personally that there’s an epidemic in the hospital.
@@phastinemoon In future episodes we see how House treats people and babies differently. House hates people because people lie, pretend, and do other things that he knows causes issues. However when it comes to babies who are not incapable of doing anything he has a different approach. During one episode a mother is suffocating her baby in the hospital, House drops his cane and even hops as fast as he can to go save the baby, and even begins to give CPR.
The show could have ended with best seasons and made spin offs honestly….
I do wonder if those were the actors not being able to hold it together in the early days.
That lawyer was short-sighted as hell. If House actually did what the lawyer told him, nobody would consent, babies would be dropping like flies, and the hospital would be facing a WAY WORSE legal case than just the one.
Its not condemning one to death by random chance, but rather condemning one to live by random chance. Instead of the random chance that both will die if they guess wrong, one will get better if it is one of the two.
No, I think he got it right the first time. Sacrificing one to save not only the other, but also the two that weren't experiencing kidney failure. This "trial" as House called it saved three lives.
@@redwall1521 Yeah, but the issue is that it is morally wrong. Thats why house is brilliant, because he ignores what people say is "ethically" correct and saves lives
MisterSmith I honestly don’t see how it’s even considered morally wrong 🤷♂️
@@redeyes3847 because you are blatantly sentencing a child to die. Dispite the fact that you are saving many others. That is against medical morals
MisterSmith I don’t it should be considered morally wrong, would it be more morally correct to treat them both exactly the same and then have them both die?
I was injured when I was a teenager. While I was comatose the doctors came to my family to ask for permission to try different routes of treatment for my brainstem injury. Thankfully, my mother was a registured nurse who specialized in intensive care work.... She was there to explain the details of every decision to my father, as well as the benefits or hazards of each decision, Thankfully they apparently made all the right ones... I woke up 10 days later! :-D
Did you survive?
Did u survive what an IGNORANT question I'm shocked your head is attached
@@janiceaguilar3593 that was a joke d'oh
Every patient needs an educated advocate like your mother.
@@DaneOrschlovsky I do know of one woman who was not so fortunate as I was though.... She lacked that good-thinking /thoughtful help.... She too eagerly jumped at the chance of lobe ectomy surgery to cure her epileptic seizures. Well, she must still continue to take just as much medicine as she did before.... But she also must wear a padded helmet whenever she is out of her bed.... and the frontal /center lobe surgery messed up her emotions, so now she is hard to control her good and bad moods. It seems so pitiful what happened to her.... Just because she did not have a clear minded parent beside her to ask the proper questions in the doctor's office. :'(
The irony when they condemn him for “flipping the coin” is had they done it the other way they still would’ve flipped the coin and they both would’ve died if they picked wrong.
ethical problems are much simpler when you keep irrationality out of it, but the legal system often doesn't allow that.
I think this is one of, if not the one, my favorites episodes. The whole episode is quite serious and the banter and jokes aren't distracting the doctors of their duty.
I enjoy seeing House treating sick infants a bit more seriously than a sick adult, it’s as if to say there’s lines even he won’t cross.
Infants are never at fault for the things they have and they also don't lie to House - so they are in a way innocent and not stupid, which House respects
i actually feel sorry for house in this episode, that's not an easy decision to make. but he knows it's the only decision. if he took all the babies off the same meds they could ALL die
He actually likes babies too so this must be very hard for him.
What would House do during a pandemic? Cure it.
Yup exactly, so true 😅
Unfortunately he's not a researcher, lmao
House wasn't curing diseases, he was diagnosing them
@@ICavalcadeI Yeah, he practices medicine not research
He will say "blah blah blah, this might kill them blah blah blah it will save you"
Cuddy cutting the tie is one of my favourite cuddy moments of the whole series ❤
0:40 Cameron's little smile here is so cute.
What Foreman is basically saying: "You're going to do what I was suggesting except better?"
Yes, Foreman, he is indeed going to let one child die instead of the chance of both of them dying.
All about the triage! ⚕️
But it's equally likely they both live!
Foreman would have saved them both xD. Also he argue that his idea was more likely to happend in hospitals.
100% chance that 1 will die and they will know the cause so they can prevent other deaths VS 50% both live/die but wont know the cause. i pick the 1st choice.
@@caitlynwinchester369 the baby is a human being u cant just make its survival rate 0% in order to have a "safer conclusion".
People that are not related to a patient CANNOT know about another patient's treatment/health because that's a HIPPA violation. Telling house to tell both parents about the other's treatment is illegal by itself. What kind of lawyer is he?🤦♂️
a poorly written one?
Wasn't this pre-HIPPA?
And maybe they consented.
@JoshSweetvale no way they consented. If they did, he wouldn't state it like like that. Also, HIPPA has always been around in House MD.
House understands that we have to take out the emotional element of things to save people sometimes
Love how chase instantly said "we take our best guess"
Actually, this made the most sense. Imagine the situation where something else besides the antibiotics caused the problem. If you take both kids off one and still die of kidney failure, this would lead you to believe the other antiobiotic should work when in truth it was the other factor and now you need another baby to find out the 2nd antibiotic wasn't going to help either. If you give a different antibiotic to both kids, this possibility of a hidden problem would show up as both would still worsen, giving you more information. This was the right choice.
Yep, that's what happened. It wasn't a bacteria, it was a virus. They went bacteria route mostly because antibiotics could was a great and easy treatment. If it would be a virus, kids would have much less chances to be treated. Like, they would die anyway. Which some of them did...
Gay.
The right choice, yes. The moral choice, no. Personally, I agree and would probably do the same thing but if the parents found out then you could expect a lawsuit. It’s a fine line.
@@kaylizzie7890 If the kids die you could expect a lawsuit either way, since the hospital was responsible for the outbreak.
@@kaylizzie7890 there is no such thing as an objective "morally good" choice. Morality is a spectrum. House made the logical best choice which is what's important.
I want to see this entire episode. It shows that he cares. And that he has the burden of his choices weighed on him for the rest of his life.
Yep.
The choices we make during covid will affect us all. Chose wisely. Live long and prosper.
Q: What would House do during a pandemic?
A: Vicodin
I don't understand why they're so offended by his plan to trial each patient with a different medication. They literally were trying to do the same thing, randomly guessing which medication is the problem and then waiting for them to either get better or for every one of them to die of the infection. The only difference is House is limiting variance. And variance is not something you want in a life or death situation.
Issue is that there is a 100 percent chance that they would kill one of the two
It ended up being Echovirus 11, which is basically a stomach flu for adults but extremely fatal for kids and babies
Stomach flu? I assumed she was a carrier or else it was very mild for an adult. But stomach flu can't be in a hospital, I worked in a restaurant and anything affecting stomach is a huge no no for at least 48 hrs. Only knew one manager to twist the rule.
Thanks
@@lizzieanne2002 anything can happen in a hospital.
@@lizzieanne2002 It was from a volunteer but people lie all the time or are asymptomatic.
I love that this channel is still alive. Best show ever, we need a remake!!
Excuse me There is only Ine HOUSE and that is James Hugh Callum Laurie. Who do you suggest?
@@plaguedoctormasque8089 I don´t know but I hate these new doctors shows like "the good doctor"
CarpeNoctem. ___ James Hugh Callum Laurie is who recommend.
No we dont. nothing can top this.
@@joaogomes452 dont worry those shows are for babies who think everything is good in this world.
Her heads going to explode and he doesn't want to get any on him?
The writers deserve an award. Priceless.
“ I defer to you legal wisdom, which takes precedent six dying babies or a missing consent form?”
Such a great episode this and DNR as well as some great early episodes show I think House at his best as the kind of person he is where I’d say the new team is more about deconstructing House and the the post rehab is new House and post Cuddy is a bit of a mess
He isn't condemning one child to die. He is letting the other one live with the rest of the possible victims. It is rational choice that brings the benefit to majority of patients.
This was the one caused by a sick nurse handing out stuff toys to babies, right?
The janitor
It was the sick nurse yes
It wasn't a nurse or a janitor. It was a elderly volunteer who made handmade teddy bears for the sick babies. They didn't think about her because she only came to the hospital every so often with more teddies to hand out.
gift shop employee - nurses got other things to do
A candy striper, I'm thinking. An elderly one.
"You're condemning one of these kids to die base on random chance." - Foreman isn't this stupid. His way, either the kids are both saved, or they both die. His way potentially condemns both to death, based on random chance. How is that better?
When the chips are down, Cuddy will always defer to House to make the hard decisions she knows she wants to make but not the guts to make them...
2:00 seems like foreshadowing to the resolution House finds at the end of the episode. The janitor walks by as well. It's a very loaded scene.
The guy @1:33 swabbing the air vents WITHOUT A RESPIRATOR ON made me facepalm so hard
Better question is what would house do about Foreman’s hair
It's gotta go.
Huh?
The hair is just a symptom of lupus
What did that lawyer mean by "They have to know another patient is getting a different treatment."? Like hell they do! Doesn't that break Doctor Patient confidentiallity? No one has the right to know what someone else is getting.
It doesnt break confidentiallity because they are not saying who the other patients ARE.
If im at the hospital needing medicine i hope i am on the same medicine as other people like me
No it doesn't
that lawyer clearly never finished law school
I think it's one of those tricky ethical grey areas.
Doctor'ing itself often involves "harming" patients to heal them (scalpels and needles) so the reason you let doctors do it, is because of that assumption they are harming in the short term to heal in the long term...
... However, the decision to take the baby off the drug that will save its life is a harmful decision with no pay off *for that patient*. It helps *others*, but in the same way you can't randomly take an organ out of patient A to save patient B without the consent of A (or A's family).
@@auricstorm Agree. Parties have to be informed. You do not get to play with lives
House is right though - it's already a random chance. If it's already going to be a completely random guess, you might as well use it to your advantage to figure out the cause. That is not to mention that in this situation you are at worst case scenario loosing only one kid, while if you randomly guess you are loosing both and still aren't closer to figuring out if it's actually the antibiotics.
Tell that to the parents of the dead baby.
@@kathrynhoward4196At least you only need to tell it to 1 set of parents. Not 4 of them.
@@NewbInLife Issue is it would have been put up to chance for all of them surviving or all of them dying, here, you are putting a baby to death no matter what
the fact that yall r still posting makes me so happy
The fact that I can still reply makes me much happier
Have you noticed that, early seasons he take the reins in the diagnostic process, but later on the series , he let's his team brainstorm and become more involved.
In his way, he's trying to teach than control. He's been trying to let others have more opportunities to be better than him and express critical thinking as he does.
Anyone else love when says "differential diagnosis people"?
My boy house will pop 6 vicodon and get the cure in a revelation
6 babies on a train track, 1 on the other track, do you pull the lever
House did
Except, the math in this case doesn't work like that.
Suppose there are 10 babies with the same disease.
Scenario 1- You give 2 of them different treatments and only 1 survives while the other 8 survive. That's a sure shot 90% success rate.
Scenario 2- You give them both the same treatment. In this case either both die and the other 8 survive or no one dies. So, there was actually a 50% chance that all 10 live or a 50% chance that 8 out of 10 live.
It would mathematically make more sense to take that chance. So, in my opinion, house was wrong.
Amanda Croft solution: never ride the train.
@@nhmooytis7058 this guy gets it
Two words, Kobayashi Maru ;)
@@kritav1111 Another angle is the simple fact that continuing as they were pretty much guaranteed both would die anyway; changing it could mean:
1. Perhaps both die anyway, because wrong treatment or too late.
2. Perhaps both survive because not killing their kidneys meant they got through it ok; or because they have time to treat the other one once they have more information.
It's partly about *not* knowingly allowing the first two to die without *trying* to figure it out, which definitely seems wrong to me, even if the legal or "moral" arguments point that way (the horror of the lawyer's part in this).
Even before I became a father I cried like a giant man-baby so hard on this episode.
The fact that this show is still relevant to present-day issues is awesome
Funny thing was I was watching House as this uploaded, for those interested, it was Season 3 Episode 21.
No one was interested
Alright no need to be harsh, it was just in case.
It is s3 ep 4
I was talking about the episode I was watching
Shruti also I’m guessing you meant S1 E4
Sometimes these people make common sense sound outrageous. House's reasoning is not brilliant in this situation or crazy it's the obvious thing to do.
agreed
Unless it's your kid and that is the one that dies. And if you say you would be fine with that you are either a liar or human garbage
5:00 Reminds me of this quote from "The imitation Game"
Peter: _"You’re not God, Alan. You don’t get to decide who lives and who dies."_
Alan: _"Yes, we do."_
Peter: _"Why?"_
Alan: _"Because no one else can."_
my inside voice imitated peter griffin right away and Alan rickman, which made it so much more funnier
House knows when to be serious
"so your condeming one of these kids to die based on random chance" better then condeming ALL of them to die based on random chance
I mean looking at it efficiently, you've got 4 babies. You need to save as many as you can, because that's how medicine works. So you either flip a coin to decide which antibiotic to take them all off of, and that's a 50-50 shot of all living or all dying.
OR you pick 2, take 1 off of each, then when one gets worse you'll know which is the safe choice and you'll be saving 3 if you can't help the last one in time.
Guaranteed 3 or a Coin Toss of All dead or All living. Easy choice to me.
When I was studying Dialog (think of it as an early version of Google, dedicated to science) our teacher brought in a If/then/not program ("plain language" not DOS or any other programming language) that could take doctors through a process to decide which bacteria were causing an infection. All known bacteria, all known possible patient symptoms, all possible (at that time) known tests.
Fascinating.
I hadn't realized diagnosing a bacterial infection could be so complicated.
Back when House's genuine moments weren't upended by him being a post-jump-the-shark buffoon in the next scene. It's weird to see him be serious and genuine.
This ep was really tough to watch. House decision was a tough one. But he didn't loose his cool. This maybe a show but being a parent. This was hard.
Daddy's Boy is another hard one to watch. I don't even have a kid and that one gets to me.
This was one of the most tensing, yet best episodes.
This episode really showed what overthinking can do it was right in front of them
Late reply but yes. They never considered the staff and volunteers visiting rooms as a potential common factor
This episode was really scary to think about. Sometimes u have to make the hardest decisions
3:24 this is what I do on exams, I know certain answers are right, they show up on multiple questions, if I pick the same answer for both questions I at least get one right rather guessing and getting both wrong
Can you explain this more?
Random chance
House isn't scared of COVID.....
COVID is scared of House
Gavriel Gallego 😂
I am not afraid of covid.... I would rather die by getting run over by a bus.
When Cuddy cuts the tie I just lose it everytime.
Nice, I'm glad this show is still around.
He would hide in a coma patients room till it was all over.
Until that patient wakes up then he will give him an extra dose of morphine so he can die peacfully
Good idea.
If this show was still running in 2020 that would be golden
"So you're condemning one of these kids to die based on random chance." So putting 4 of them on a coin flip is any better?
House the man who defines the difference between reason and emotion.
If someone made a special Covid-19 episode/movie of House, the ratings would be through the fucking roof. Hey Neflix/Hulu or even that new Peacock channel.. make it happen!
house said "is anyone gonna turn this into a trolley problem?" and didn't wait for an answer
"You're condemning one based on random chance?". Well, if you choose to leave both on the same medicine, you're still risking condemning them both based on random chance. Assuming that one of the drugs will net a positive result, it's a choice of between one kid certainly dying and one kid certainly living versus both kids having a 50-50 chance to die.
Statistically, both situations force you to take a random chance, and both have the same expected outcome, but Houses way gives you more information you can use for the other kids (i.e. the reactions to two drugs individually). Houses solution could also expose the fact that neither of the chosen drugs work, which you can't learn with "keep both kids on the same drug" strategy.
House would be that doctor who would cough on you and laugh during the covid outbreak. LOL
Sometimes the only choices you have are bad. You still have to choose.
Get the jab.... Don't?????
@@pilotguy40
It's not getting the jab or not, it's WHY people are doing what they're doing that upsets me.
I got the Moderna.
@@pilotguy40
NOW I gotta decide if I get a 3rd.
Lawyer: you can't do it.
House: hold my cane
This episode was one of the few that hit me closest to home. My baby boy was born litterally just as Wuhan was locking down so I worried about him a lot
Being the hospital lawyer has gotta be the most stressful job. and the most lucrative
God I miss House! One of the best TV shows ever.
"The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few, or the one."
I miss house so much I watch it once a month the full 8 seasons I love the show I wish they could make a spin off or something
The music that hits when house says yes i am is perfect for this scene
What would House do during an epidemic? He'd stay home because there's no mystery. He'd probably have something snarky to say about people wearing masks, using copious amounts of sanitizer, etc.
*moisturiser lul
Why would he stay home? He's a doctor. He needs to work
Boris Uitham have you seen the show lol he hates work
@@mokshamahey Not entirely true.
He hates boring work. The interesting parts of his work seem to be one of the only things that keep him going.
Hugh Laurie already said what House would do.
My god how much I miss this... best series ever
Espero que um dia a série Doutor House volte com novas temporadas. Deixou muitas saudades. O médico gênio e doido faz muita falta.
I love how both cameron and chase both chuckled lol probably wasn’t a scripted line lol. I love house
Well, Cameron fancies House and Chase genuinely finds him amusing at this point. He hasn't been through years of abuse yet.
3:56 Black Lightning
Thank God someone said it!!!!
Defer treatments to experimental research facility with the statement that the hospital has done all it can within the legal framework and patient care of doing no harm.
It happens to cancer patients all the time.
That, parents will sign off on.
4:38 isn’t House legally right even though his argument isn’t? 1 patient has no right to the treatment information of another, even if both are convinced they have similar conditions
As long as the other patient isn't personally identified there's no breach. And in fact what you'd probably do is go to each parent individually and ask each of them to consent to information sharing as part of the treatment process and they'd probably agree.
Scott Matheson but the lawyer is arguing 1 patient is entitled to the treatment information of another without either agreeing to anything yet; not sure what the lawyer is basing this on
No one ever said life was fair, sometimes you need to make hard decisions
"It's always MRSA in hospitals" a statement said by a doctor who is an internist and a neurologist to another doctor who is supposed to be an ID consultant and they acted like he came up with something that's not a very obvious thing to say. God it sucks to watch House as a doctor ☹️. I miss seeing it when i was in high school.
Part of the "House MO" is that *someone* has to raise the obvious so that either he can dismiss it (usually) or (sometimes) they can treat it. And even in a "zebra" case there's no reason the patient couldn't have an existing "obvious" condition too (which they may as well treat).
The worst thing about house as a doc is his team doing all the different procedures that in real life would be done by different specialists eg colonoscopy, etc.
@@Scottlp2 yeah 😂 house's team even do craniotomies!
@@Scottlp2 Nah bro, they're just *that* good lol
I liked the series, simply a good premise and fairly well presented,
Whomever consulted for the show should be out there conducting research for new viruses.
@Muiri MacDuff Good job big-money corporations don't do most clinical research then.
Nothing to do with ambiguity. Research is FUNDED by large businesses, but the researchers work for academic or medical institutions.
I really miss his stories! As an RN and have worked in various major hospital, I can identify!
I'm sure this can be the case with medical fiction in general, but for the sake of this particular clip, I'll focus on House specifically. People have pointed out the inaccuracies and the liberties it takes with actual medical fact/procedure, and based on what I've read over the years, those in the medical field often struggle (or in some cases are completely unable) to overlook these issues. You mentioned in your comment that you're an RN, so I'm gonna assume you have more knowledge than the average joe when it comes to medicine lol. Just out of curiosity, do you have the same issue, or are you able to let certain things slide? I find it interesting to know what actual medical professionals think of works of fiction like this.
It’s true that about half the hand gel dispensers are empty or broken 😂 My hands would get so dry on my internal medicine rotations during med school cause so many hand washings before and after each room during rounds
(ps I just started a channel about medicine, check it out pls)
I used to see doctors using sanitiser after visiting each bed BEFORE Covid19. Just wondering how many times they use them now 😂
Mine got that way working at a store during the pandemic. Woke up one night scratching my hands open.
Trudy Colborne ouch, I bet
at least "based on random chance" is fair and objective
four to eight saying "first" lol
It must be exciting to be first when you are ten years old.
first
and still no one GAF