More Medical Ethics Stuff
Dr. Mac's thread inspired me to add on to a topic I'd raised earlier about Dr. House's approach to medical ethics (see "Medical Ethics a la House," below).
In "Control," House seemed to be acting a bit unlike the amoral misanthrope we know and love. He uttered the phrase "unethical" twice (I think), and he wasn't joking. Both Cuddy and Wilson called him on this peculiarity, so we know it wasn't just a writing glitch. And his behavior toward his patient, while far from warm and fuzzy, was more personal than usual. He seemed almost like those "good guy" docs on ER, who risk themselves to buck the system in order to help their charges. What's up with that?
I think this episode gave us some new information about House's ethical views. What was it that House deemed unethical? Medical research. Patient trials. Well, on the face of it, that's just silly. As Cuddy pointed out, medical research (if done properly) is not evil. It saves lives. Moreover, House himself uses trial and error on his patients. In a sense, each one of them is an experimental subject. House mentioned that changing the mission of the Hospital could result in pressuring desperate patients to participate in trials. This might result in not getting truly free and informed consent. But, again, these values aren't high on House's list. He is not above pressuring patients or their families to agree to treatment. And, much of the time, he seems to regard informed consent as a mere formality.
So, what is House really objecting to? Not medical research per se, but the conflation of medical research and medical treatment. What is the difference? They have different goals. Medical research aims to benefit others (although it may also benefit the patient himself); medical treatment aims to benefit the patient (although it may, incidentally, benefit others as well). It is fine for drug companies or research establishments to conduct experiments. It is even fine for doctors within hospitals to perform research, as long as they are clear about how it differs from rergular patient care. But it's not fine to covertly transform a hospital into a tool to find the cure for cancer. That would, as House put it, "kill" the hospital, as a hospital.
House doesn't say all that, but he shows it through his actions. He is normally quite utilitarian in his ethical decisions -- he believes one ought to do what brings the best results, making occasional exceptions out of respect for autonomy. But, on a utilitarian analysis, it would probably be hard to justify giving his bulimic patient one of a limited number of transplantable organs. It is reasonable to believe that another patient on the waiting list, one who does not have an eating disorder, might have better results with the donor heart than House's patient will.
Yet House firmly refuses to take the "big picture" approach. That is the job of the transplant committee. HIS job is to do what is best for his patient. And that's what sets him apart from a researcher. House may not like his patients, but he is THEIR doctor. His goal is to cure them. Not cure cancer.
OK, I know I oversimplified the difference between research and regular medicine. But what do you think?
