NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the new episode of House last night, and during the episode they removed a part of a guy's brain because it was damaged. So they did that, and it turns out that the guy didn't need to have that part of his brain removed. This is actually common in just about every House episode. They try some radical treatment that didn't work before they find the real cause. However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?

Anyone else noticed that, or do I just not understand what constitutes malpractice?

I was just reading a book called Blink which mentions some research that suggests the doctors who get sued for malpractice are the ones patients don't like rather than the ones who make mistakes. Still doesn't explain why House doesn't get sued...

I always wondered why he doesn't get sued as well..


Also, inb4 Lupus

I was just reading a book called Blink which mentions some research that suggests the doctors who get sued for malpractice are the ones patients don't like rather than the ones who make mistakes. Still doesn't explain why House doesn't get sued...

They actually mentioned that in an episode. Chase did something careless and a patient died, but the family liked him so he didn't get sued.

It is only malpractice if the doctor is negligent in the procedure (makes a careless mistake) or if the patiennt/patient's proxy does not sign off on the procedure after being informed of the dangers. As with anything in law there are some exceptions, but that's the general definition.

Because they are so overwhelmed with being cured I suppose. Whose going to miss a little brain anyhow?

House MD is above the law!

also who knew about this bombshell (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/778217659_127880746f_b.jpg)

It is only malpractice if the doctor is negligent in the procedure (makes a careless mistake) or if the patiennt/patient's proxy does not sign off on the procedure after being informed of the dangers. As with anything in law there are some exceptions, but that's the general definition.

you beat me to it. Negligence has to be proven and damages must be established.

House MD is above the law!

also who knew about this bombshell (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/778217659_127880746f_b.jpg)

Sadly upon seeing that my first thought was "Who'd wear that dress on a beach?" Getting the sand out of it would be a bitch.

House MD is above the law!

also who knew about this bombshell (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/778217659_127880746f_b.jpg)

I knew, but I believe this is an old article. They called off their engagement as far as my wife tells me. It was in People ad US Weekly I believe.

you beat me to it. Negligence has to be proven and damages must be established.

So the fact that some of these treatments are done on guesses on what it could be, wouldn't count?

I was watching the new episode of House last night, and during the episode they removed a part of a guy's brain because it was damaged. So they did that, and it turns out that the guy didn't need to have that part of his brain removed. This is actually common in just about every House episode. They try some radical treatment that didn't work before they find the real cause. However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?

Anyone else noticed that, or do I just not understand what constitutes malpractice?
Because that's not going to fit in 42 minutes of TV.

So the fact that some of these treatments are done on guesses on what it could be, wouldn't count?

If the treatment is medically relevant and done in the interest of the patient, with the patient's signed approval (or that of their proxy), than no. A well educated guess is better than sitting there doing nothing when you already know that the outcome of inaction would be sure death. Contrasting sure death vs. "risky treatment" is an easy call. If the patient understand the risk and of sound thought then it can be done.

House and his team don't get sued, because it's a tv show......then again, they could potentially end the series in a Seinfeld-esque finale, where all the doctors are being sued in court, and they show clips of House's more controversal actions...

Easy answer: It's a TV show. They do all sorts of things on the show that would never actually be allowed in the medical community.

Also easy answer: He does get sued. Cuddy has made it clear more than once that House makes up a large proportion of their legal budget.

Because that's not going to fit in 42 minutes of TV.

House and his team don't get sued, because it's a tv show......then again, they could potentially end the series in a Seinfeld-esque finale, where all the doctors are being sued in court, and they show clips of House's more controversal actions...

Easy answer: It's a TV show. They do all sorts of things on the show that would never actually be allowed in the medical community.

Also easy answer: He does get sued. Cuddy has made it clear more than once that House makes up a large proportion of their legal budget.

Yes, I know it's a TV show, yes I know it's not reality, but I would like my fantasy to have some resemblance to reality, or a cause & effect thing going on.

Yes, I know it's a TV show, yes I know it's not reality, but I would like my fantasy to have some resemblance to reality, or a cause & effect thing going on.

*shrug*

They did the whole arc where the cop went after House for doing drugs. And they've certainly had lawsuits -often settled (which is realistic). The two I can remember off the top of my head are the family of the woman Chase killed and the mothers of the baby that died in the episode where all the babies were sick.

They don't focus on it all the time, of course. Then it would be more of a legal show than a medical one.

I think the in-story reason that House doesn't get sued even more is that the end result is usually good. The person gets better. People rarely sue when they're cured.

I was watching the new episode of House last night, and during the episode they removed a part of a guy's brain because it was damaged. So they did that, and it turns out that the guy didn't need to have that part of his brain removed. This is actually common in just about every House episode. They try some radical treatment that didn't work before they find the real cause. However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?

Anyone else noticed that, or do I just not understand what constitutes malpractice?
because he was going to die without their help.

i think that an ambulance chasing lawyer is just what the show needs. house's malpractice insurance would be so high that it would be the biggest item in the hospital's budget

House isn't actually a good doctor. All he really knows how to do is order every test known to man.

House isn't actually a good doctor. All he really knows how to do is order every test known to man.

He has to..its part of being a diagnostic specialist...He is a genius...I think his breakthroughs speak for themselves

He has to..its part of being a diagnostic specialist...He is a genius...I think his breakthroughs speak for themselves

An actually good diagnostic specialist who earned the respect that House enjoyed would have far better intuition than House and wouldn't require such roundabout routes to arrive at the correct diagnosis.

I was watching the new episode of House last night, and during the episode they removed a part of a guy's brain because it was damaged. So they did that, and it turns out that the guy didn't need to have that part of his brain removed. This is actually common in just about every House episode. They try some radical treatment that didn't work before they find the real cause. However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?

Anyone else noticed that, or do I just not understand what constitutes malpractice?

are you seriously asking us to discuss the errors in a TV show? Seriously? Like...for real?

More to point:

1) it's a tv show, the character getting sued and losing his license, doesn't make for interesting TV, does it?

2) medical malpractice is a negligence claim. It's not enough to show that he made a mistake, it has to be shown that it's a mistake a reasonable doctor would not have made in the same circumstances

3) He does get sued, a lot. When his ex, Stacy, was part of the cast, it made reference to the fact that the legal department has someone who JUST deals with claims against him

4) it's a fucking tv show.

are you seriously asking us to discuss the errors in a TV show? Seriously? Like...for real?

More to point:

1) it's a tv show, the character getting sued and losing his license, doesn't make for interesting TV, does it?

2) medical malpractice is a negligence claim. It's not enough to show that he made a mistake, it has to be shown that it's a mistake a reasonable doctor would not have made in the same circumstances

3) He does get sued, a lot. When his ex, Stacy, was part of the cast, it made reference to the fact that the legal department has someone who JUST deals with claims against him

4) it's a fucking tv show.

Hey, you know, someone should make a comic book about a superhero who sits in the library and researches criminal psychology all day! Why doesn't anyone do that?

(Is it a sign you've been on NSG too long when almost every thread reminds you of an older thread? :p )

Yes, I know it's a TV show, yes I know it's not reality, but I would like my fantasy to have some resemblance to reality, or a cause & effect thing going on.

then I suggest you stop watching TV. The whole point about TV is that it does not resemble reality. "Doctor looks at patient, goes in back room to consult Gray's Anatomy" is no more gripping TV than "lawyer goes to office, researches on Westlaw for 4 hours".

If I wanted to watch someone do my job, I'd just go do my job. It pays better than watching TV. I don't expect TV to resemble reality, why the hell would I want that?

House MD is above the law!

also who knew about this bombshell (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/778217659_127880746f_b.jpg)

They broke up.

An actually good diagnostic specialist who earned the respect that House enjoyed would have far better intuition than House and wouldn't require such roundabout routes to arrive at the correct diagnosis.


yeah...but then again, not everything House gets to diagnose, is diagnosed everyday by other specialists. Alot of extremley rare illnesses come up in the show

Hey, you know, someone should make a comic book about a superhero who sits in the library and researches criminal psychology all day! Why doesn't anyone do that?

(Is it a sign you've been on NSG too long when almost every thread reminds you of an older thread? :p )

When was that? Sounds like a laff.

I've seen about seven or eight episodes of House, and at least two of them involved House or the hospital being sued, so at least within my small sample of shows, it happens. More often than in reality, possibly. A friend of my family is a legal nurse, basically an expert witness that doctors hire (and who make bank, like many expert witnesses, by the way) to support their defense in malpractice suits. Hospitals know who the good legal nurses are, and they're good at what they do. Beating a large hospital is no picnic.

An actually good diagnostic specialist who earned the respect that House enjoyed would have far better intuition than House and wouldn't require such roundabout routes to arrive at the correct diagnosis.

I'm assuming you're making this claim as a diagnostician yourself?

yeah...but then again, not everything House gets to diagnose, is diagnosed everyday by other specialists. Alot of extremley rare illnesses come up in the show

Most doctors will never see any of the types of things House sees. Those few who do certainly won't see all of them - it will be a once in a lifetime thing.

Apparently, the writers for the show comb through medical journals looking for weird cases from all over the world.

This is another one of those things you just have to suspend your disbelief for and pretend that one doctor might see all of these sorts of things.

I was watching the new episode of House last night, and during the episode they removed a part of a guy's brain because it was damaged. So they did that, and it turns out that the guy didn't need to have that part of his brain removed. This is actually common in just about every House episode. They try some radical treatment that didn't work before they find the real cause. However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?

Anyone else noticed that, or do I just not understand what constitutes malpractice?

because anytime a doctor fiddles with your brain he removes the part of the brain that makes you want to sue.

He has to..its part of being a diagnostic specialist...He is a genius...I think his breakthroughs speak for themselves

A diagnostic specialist should have a good working differential diagnosis following a thorough history and examination and then use this to target any further investigations. House would have been struck off fast.

also who knew about this bombshell (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/778217659_127880746f_b.jpg)
They broke up way back in 2007.

As for the rest, everything that Dem said.

Come back to Blighty, Laurie!

We want a bit more A Bit More of Fry & Laurie.

DAAAAAAMN IT JOHN!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7o8FbGCR9U&feature=related)

I'm assuming you're making this claim as a diagnostician yourself?

No, I'm making this claim as someone who must hang around diagnosticians for significant periods of time.

Come back to Blighty, Laurie!

We want a bit more A Bit More of Fry & Laurie.

DAAAAAAMN IT JOHN!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7o8FbGCR9U&feature=related)

The guy ought to be able to buy England in a few years. :tongue:

are you seriously asking us to discuss the errors in a TV show? Seriously? Like...for real?


I'm pretty sure you're just teasing wilgrove now.. because he's wilgrove. People do this aaaaaalllll the time on NSG. There are always discussions about fictional or hypothetical discussions. Just see any of the sci fi threads for instance.

Actually, in Season 2 [or whenever they do that retarded Stacey ark] they mention that people suing due to House doing crazy = 60% of PPTH legal expenses.

However, last night a thought has come to me. Why didn't the guy (or any of the past patient of House's team) ever sue House or the team for Malpractice?
They sue a lot. But the team usually gets to extort a consent, which makes the case weak to none. Still, the legal aspect pop up once in a while. Even Wilson got sued late in the series.


A better question is: What happened to the Corvette?

They sue a lot. But the team usually gets to extort a consent, which makes the case weak to none. Still, the legal aspect pop up once in a while. Even Wilson got sued late in the series.


A better question is: What happened to the Corvette?

house gave it to me. didn't want a dirt mob car.

To you he gave his whiskey in exchange for getting him extra Vicodin. Where's the car, dude?

To you he gave his whiskey in exchange for getting him extra Vicodin. Where's the car, dude?

well you say after he took the Vicodin and i drank the whiskey, I talked him into letting me drive the car. and well well its at the bottom of a ravine. I survive unharmed though seems god loves the drunks.

An actually good diagnostic specialist who earned the respect that House enjoyed would have far better intuition than House and wouldn't require such roundabout routes to arrive at the correct diagnosis.

An actual diagnostician probably wouldn't have a single particularly challenging case each consecutive week which also happens to be teach a relevant moral lesson to himself or a member of his staff, but I expect that watching real doctors for one hour each week isn't likely to generate much entertainment.

Come back to Blighty, Laurie!

We want a bit more A Bit More of Fry & Laurie.

DAAAAAAMN IT JOHN!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7o8FbGCR9U&feature=related)

Stephen Fry looks a hell of a lot younger in these shows.

are you seriously asking us to discuss the errors in a TV show? Seriously? Like...for real?


You need to learn to calm the fuck down, Neo, and stop picking on poor Willy.

Sometimes Neo, you do want TV shows that are meant to be based in some sort of current reality and when they have inconsistencies or inaccuracies. i was watching a TV show today set in the 1980's and they were driving modern cars, not something the best to see.

Nothing wrong with talking why TV shows got it wrong, it can be a good relaxing pasttime.

You need to learn to calm the fuck down, Neo, and stop picking on poor Willy.

Sometimes Neo, you do want TV shows that are meant to be based in some sort of current reality and when they have inconsistencies or inaccuracies. i was watching a TV show today set in the 1980's and they were driving modern cars, not something the best to see.

Nothing wrong with talking why TV shows got it wrong, it can be a good relaxing pasttime.

He seems perfectly calm to me.

There's a degree of suspension of disbelief necessary when you watch any TV show, or movie, or read any book, or play any video game. Any form of entertainment requires an implicit understanding that it is not our reality, and as such some things might not make sense.

If you're not capable of enjoying a form of entertainment without picking apart the minute details that are inconsistent, then perhaps you should not be indulging in entertainment.

If you're not capable of enjoying a form of entertainment without picking apart the minute details that are inconsistent, then perhaps you should not be indulging in entertainment.

Picking apart the minute inconsistincies of an entertainment medium can't be a form of entertainment in itself?

Perhaps if you're not capable of enjoying such a form of entertainment you shouldn't be indulging in it

Picking apart the minute inconsistincies of an entertainment medium can't be a form of entertainment in itself?

Perhaps if you're not capable of enjoying such a form of entertainment you shouldn't be indulging in it

I'm pretty sure he never said he did. In fact, one can infer just the opposite from his post.

Moreover there is, I think, a line, between picking apart inconsistencies, and wondering why they are there. There's something Poli termed (and a term I stole) as the "magical exposition fairy", in which characters feel the need to explain to the other characters (in essence, to the effect of explaining it to the audience) something that this character SHOULD already know.

My favorite example comes from an episode of Law and Order where one assistant district attorney turned to the other and said "someone died as a result of his commission of a felony, we can charge him with felony murder." ....well, yes, this is true. It's also something any first year law student would know. It shouldn't need explanation to an assistant district attorney.

But the fact is those WATCHING aren't necessarily lawyers and DO need that explained to them. So while it does break a bit of realism to have that conversation, I know exactly WHY it happened. To explain it to the audience (in a way that suggests lazy script writing, but whatever).

Either way, I think it's more than a tad bit foolish to wonder aloud WHY they did that. Why is simple. They wrote it that way.

Picking apart the minute inconsistincies of an entertainment medium can't be a form of entertainment in itself?

Perhaps if you're not capable of enjoying such a form of entertainment you shouldn't be indulging in it

Cute, but that's not what I said.

As Wilgrove innumerable threads have suggested, he is incapable of enjoying a wide variety of movies, TV shows, and video games because of the inconsistencies he notices in them. If his concern over these minor errors is enough to negatively impact his enjoyment of these forms of entertainment, as it seems to be, then I was suggesting that perhaps he not indulge in them.

But, please, rephrase my posts some more to appear witty.

I go to bed every night dreaming of Cuddy's pole-dancing episode.

I'm pretty sure he never said he did. In fact, one can infer just the opposite from his post.

In my mind reading this thread (rather than engaging in nitpicking itself) would be the equivalent to watching a tv programme. Sorry I didn't really clarify much (supposed to be working)

Moreover there is, I think, a line, between picking apart inconsistencies, and wondering why they are there.

Either way, I think it's more than a tad bit foolish to wonder aloud WHY they did that. Why is simple. They wrote it that way.


It's as if the people involved in picking apart the programmes are willing to suspend their disbelief up to a certain point but not follow through completely. I fail to see why this is wrong (or irritating) when complete suspension of disbelief is fine.

Cute, but that's not what I said.

As Wilgrove innumerable threads have suggested, he is incapable of enjoying a wide variety of movies, TV shows, and video games because of the inconsistencies he notices in them. If his concern over these minor errors is enough to negatively impact his enjoyment of these forms of entertainment, as it seems to be, then I was suggesting that perhaps he not indulge in them.

But, please, rephrase my posts some more to appear witty.

I'm sorry if i've offended you but it seemed the easiest way to make my point. In regards to Wilgroves behaviour : Some people just enjoy moaning. It's their entertainment

I'm sorry if i've offended you but it seemed the easiest way to make my point. In regards to Wilgroves behaviour : Some people just enjoy moaning. It's their entertainment

That would explain the behavior of many posters on here.

You need to learn to calm the fuck down, Neo, and stop picking on poor Willy.

If we're going to talk about what someone 'needs' to do, I say you need to avoid such direct language. There is no reason to tell someone that given his comment to which this pertains. No yellow-card given this time, but next time I will card you.

If you're not capable of enjoying a form of entertainment without picking apart the minute details that are inconsistent, then perhaps you should not be indulging in entertainment.

Oh I can enjoy it, if I didn't I wouldn't watch as many shows as I do. But come on if we are watching a show that is meant to reflect life in the Navy and they are getting things completely wrong it doesn't really reflect it well.

But the fact is those WATCHING aren't necessarily lawyers and DO need that explained to them. So while it does break a bit of realism to have that conversation, I know exactly WHY it happened. To explain it to the audience (in a way that suggests lazy script writing, but whatever).
Aye, there's an alternative school of thought that tries to do away with unrealistic exposition.

I suppose something like Primer, which throws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE) you into the world of quantum mechanics and time theory without any 'help', is an extreme example of this; and perhaps The Wire or Deadwood to a lesser degree.

That would explain the behavior of many posters on here.

Yes. Yes it would.

Aye, there's an alternative school of thought that tries to do away with unrealistic exposition.

I suppose something like Primer, which throws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE) you into the world of quantum mechanics and time theory without any 'help', is an extreme example of this; and perhaps The Wire or Deadwood to a lesser degree.

I suppose it all depends on the atmosphere you want to create, no?

Aye, there's an alternative school of thought that tries to do away with unrealistic exposition.

I suppose something like Primer, which throws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE) you into the world of quantum mechanics and time theory without any 'help', is an extreme example of this; and perhaps The Wire or Deadwood to a lesser degree.

"Primer" mention! Serious kudos, dude - fucking awesome movie. (That I can't find anywhere).

I suppose it all depends on the atmosphere you want to create, no?
Sure.

I'm just one of those who prefer, most of the time, less exposition.

That, and I can't stand Hugh Laurie's US accent.



"Primer" mention! Serious kudos, dude - fucking awesome movie.
It is ace!

How the fuck did they make it on $7000?

Most doctors will never see any of the types of things House sees. Those few who do certainly won't see all of them - it will be a once in a lifetime thing.

Apparently, the writers for the show comb through medical journals looking for weird cases from all over the world.

This is another one of those things you just have to suspend your disbelief for and pretend that one doctor might see all of these sorts of things.

I think they also pointed out (Season 2, maybe?), at one point, that House has a team of specialists because his specific department exists to deal with the really weird stuff that has already confused other people.

Admitted - they DO have a sort of "Murder, She Wrote" quality in that, everyone in their town falls over with an exotic disease, but they've at least made an effort to suggest that they're also taking referrals of established 'unusual' cases.

On point of the OP - the last episode of House I saw, they got sued (for cutting off some guy's hand).

On point of the OP - the last episode of House I saw, they got sued (for cutting off some guy's hand).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty_(House_episode)

:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty_(House_episode)

:D

Aye, that's the feller. :)

I point to Wittig's avvy. -_-

Admitted - they DO have a sort of "Murder, She Wrote" quality in that, everyone in their town falls over with an exotic disease, but they've at least made an effort to suggest that they're also taking referrals of established 'unusual' cases.


I would never want to be friends with that woman. The chances of you being killed are pretty high.

he dosent get sued, but he does get shot, punched, kicked, tripped....

An actual diagnostician probably wouldn't have a single particularly challenging case each consecutive week which also happens to be teach a relevant moral lesson to himself or a member of his staff, but I expect that watching real doctors for one hour each week isn't likely to generate much entertainment.

Sure House is an entertaining diagnostician. Never disputed that. I merely pointed out he isn't actually a good one.

An actual diagnostician probably wouldn't have a single particularly challenging case each consecutive week which also happens to be teach a relevant moral lesson to himself or a member of his staff, but I expect that watching real doctors for one hour each week isn't likely to generate much entertainment.

Cuddy says in one episode that he only gets to help out the hospital 12 times a year.

The whole point about TV is that it does not resemble reality. "Doctor looks at patient, goes in back room to consult Gray's Anatomy" is no more gripping TV than "lawyer goes to office, researches on Westlaw for 4 hours". If I wanted to watch someone do my job, I'd just go do my job. It pays better than watching TV. I don't expect TV to resemble reality, why the hell would I want that?

I'm going to have to agree with Neo here. That's also why I'm more inclined to go and see James Bond or Underworld or The Transporter than I am some indy film where people sit around in a bar or coffee shop and complain about their lives. I can see that every day for free, whereas I don't get vampires or car chases every day.

I'm going to have to agree with Neo here. That's also why I'm more inclined to go and see James Bond or Underworld or The Transporter than I am some indy film where people sit around in a bar or coffee shop and complain about their lives. I can see that every day for free, whereas I don't get vampires or car chases every day.

Hmmmm...Then a film where Jason Statham and vampires sit around in coffee shop complaining about their lives would be box-office gold!

*Starts writing screenplay*

Hmmmm...Then a film where Jason Statham and vampires sit around in coffee shop complaining about their lives would be box-office gold!

*Starts writing screenplay*It would be even better if the coffee shop had to maintain a speed of 50 mph or else explode.

Hmmmm...Then a film where Jason Statham and vampires sit around in coffee shop complaining about their lives would be box-office gold!

It would be even better if the coffee shop had to maintain a speed of 50 mph or else explode.

Now that sounds like a film everyone can enjoy. Add in some hot chicks and some gratuitous nudity and you've got a box-office smash.