Read the Mother Courage article and the DIY scientist articles. What major ethical error did a doctor make in the Mother Courage article? How do you attribute the difference in insight between this doctor and the insight shown by Jill Viles?
Write your answers as a reply in the comments section
A huge ethical error in the mother courage article that the first doctor made was trying to blame the mother for having children, even though the disease was not present in her family and was a gene mutation. Instead of trying to come up with solutions or ways to make the boys feel more comfortable, he simply scolded her to even having kids. However, Jill Viles insight was different. She knew that she wouldn’t be able to cure herself, but she thought that if they studied her and some other examples of people with similar genetic mutations that maybe they could help future people effected by the same mutations. She wasn’t only looking out for herself or blaming anything, she was simply trying to use her life as an opportunity to make others’ lives better.
In the Mother Courage article, there were a few ethical errors that the doctor made. He assumed that it was present in her family genetics when it really was a mutation. He also told her to give up hope and just take them home and love them. Honesty can be the best policy but taking hope away from someone is wrong. With Jill, she did not give up. She was curious about her, and her family’s symptoms and she pushed. Jill continuing on extended her father’s life, helped Priscilla improve her own health, and increased knowledge of her condition.
A huge ethical error in the mother courage article was that the doctor tried blaming the mother for having children. The science says that it was a gene mutation and not caused by genetics. The doctor should have tried to think of ways to make the kids more comfortable. Just blaming the mother was not at all helpful and very unprofessional. Jill Vile’s attitude was very different. She accepted that there was no cure for herself. But, she wanted to help others. So, “giving” her body to science was a very noble thing for her to do. Placing blame isn’t professional and Jill was looking out for others. Giving her life to making others better.
Anytime someone’s health is blamed on someone having children, a doctor is making a poor ethical choice. That’s horrible. The fact that it was a mutation in the end makes the doctor’s actions even worse. Jill had a more positive outlook. Knowing her condition couldn’t be cured didn’t stop her from wanting to help others, going as far as donating her body for research. Far different from the doctor’s advice of enjoying the time left.
The ethical error made by the neurologist in the Mother Courage article was that they blamed the mother for having her second child, thus blaming the child’s pain on the mother, when the mother had no knowledge of the condition whatsoever. The neurologist also failed to recommend any treatments, which may have included experimental treatments or palliative care, or any resources to deal with the grief. Jill Vile’s next steps after realizing her condition were to take action. The difference in the responses is likely due to the fact that the neurologist did not live through or with the disease, whereas Jill Vile’s entire life had been affected by her disease.
The ethical error made by the doctor in Mother Courage was when he scolded her about knowingly having a second child. Medical professionals are there to aid or assist not to criticize or blame people for conditions. As a mother, reading that made me sick. The insight between the doctor(s) in Mother Courage versus Jill was completely different. The doctors in MC did not want to help nor did not offer any kind of knowledge in helping Pat with her children’s health or condition. Whereas Jill took it upon herself to gain that knowledge and look into whatever was going on with her own body. The fact that there was a fatal ending to both diseases/mutations but the outlook on each were so different. Very little help was offered to Pat but she still made sure to continue her quest. But with Jill, she used her own body as a tool and reference. I found both articles very moving and interesting!
One of the biggest ethical errors on the doctor’s part was blaming the mother. Not only is it something that was not in her control, but his lecturing her on what she “should have done” is incredibly unprofessional and unethical. It was not something she could control, and it wasn’t even something she was a carrier of. It is not his job to ridicule his patients or their family members, it is his job to help, and he did not achieve that job. The difference in insight between the doctor and Jill is that the doctor did not give any hope, and told the mother to essentially give up on the idea of her children getting better. Jill used everything she could to help the future people affected by this illness would be able to have better lives. She did not give up on the idea of a better future in terms of finding a cure.
In Mother Courage, the ethical error made by the doctor was blaming the mother. He blamed her for having her second child and for not knowing that she had the gene mutation for Duchenne. In The DIY Scientist, Jill took charge and decided to help herself when no one else would. I think a major difference between the doctor and Jill is that Jill lived out her disease. Jill had motivation to research and learn about her disease, as well as help her family through it because she could relate to them. The doctor in Mother Courage thought he wasn’t to blame and that it was the mother’s fault for the condition of her children. He didn’t attempt to research or aid the family in any way.
The ethical mistake made by the doctor in the Mother Courage article was condemning the mother for having her second child and thereby placing the guilt for the kid’s suffering on the mother, even though the mother was completely unaware of the disease. The doctor also gave no recommendations for treatment or therapy. Jill knew that she wouldn’t be able to cure herself, but she thought that if they studied her, they could help people effected by the same mutations. The difference in insight between the doctor and Jill is that the doctor did not have any hope, and told the mother to essentially give up on the idea of her children getting better. Jill instead did not give up on the idea of a better future in terms of finding a cure and hopes to help anyone else suffering from the condition.
The ethical error was blaming the mother. She was not told about a gene mutation and was mad to feel guilty for having a second kid. The doctor was wrong. He shouldn’t have spent so much time making her feel guilty and telling her that she was wrong and awful.It wasn’t even something she could have controlled. Jill decided to take action and learn more about her disease. She decided to help other people.
The first doctor completely ignored the signs that something was wrong with the children. The second doctor blamed the mother that it was her fault and that she should’ve known to not have anymore children. While it is an X-linked trait, she didn’t know because the first doctor didn’t tell her anything. However, Jill did a bunch of research and didn’t doo it just to cure herself. She also wanted to help the people in the future.
The major ethical error made by the doctor was not only telling the mother that it was her fault for having children but he also told her that she had a family history of the disease when in reality it was a mutation. He also told her to pretty much give up all hope and that there would never be a cure for the disease. The doctor wrote the patients off as just waiting to die whereas Jill Viles looked into the reasons behind why she had the disease/what it was. The doctor didn’t dive deeper into the reasoning and marked the case closed.
The major ethical error the doctor made in Mother Courage is that the doctor told the boys mother to basically give up any hope that her children would get better and told he he would not even attempt to try. The doctor told her to go home and love her children until they die. This was very unethical to tell a mother who had just found out her kids have a terminal disease. Not only did he do this , he essentially blamed the mother for her second son having the disease and told her she should have aborted the second child of hers. The difference between The doctor and Jill is that, Jill was motivated she did everything in her power to not only be properly diagnosed and help her family also, but to also help others. She spent most of her time attempting to help and research the rare disease she and her father both had.
There were several ways the neurologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital committed ethical errors, such as giving a death prognosis, blaming the patient/patient’s family, and judging the patient’s right to reproduction, all in front of a child. But also, Dr. Charles Bonsett seems to have a conflict of interest in his research because the study received Furlong’s money while accepting her son’s in a clinical trial. The difference between the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital’s neurologist and Jill is that the disease represented to the doctor a death sentence, and his reaction was hopelessness, which he projected on his claims to Furlong. In contrast, Jill’s perspective was of curiosity and aimed for answers, making her arrive at her own and others’ diagnoses without a medical career.
A major ethical error within the Mother Courage Article was upon Pat Furlong’s sons Duchenne diagnosis. At the time it was thought that Duchenne was solely genetically passed down. Pat shared that there was no family history of this condition. Despite sharing this information, the neurologist dismissed it. He proceeded to unethically bash Pat for carrying a second son and delivered a harsh reality of ‘no hope’ in a vilely insensitive manner.
In retrospect, Jill took a different approach to her rare condition from the previous doctor. She studied her and her families symptoms tirelessly. She stumbled on the disease in question and brought it to the attention of doctors and professionals to study. She even found Pricilla, who shared similar characteristics of the conditions, but some in an opposite manner. Jill prolonged her fathers and Pricilla’s life, offered up her research, and allowed for her condition to be studied further.
In the Mother Courage article, a doctor makes a point by saying that Furlong is responsible for the suffering of her second child. The doctor was demeaning and unprofessional. He made the mistake of assuming that Furlong knew about Duchenne’s and that it ran in her family, neither of which is true. On the other hand, Jill respectfully tried reaching out to Priscilla to contact someone else who had her condition, and it eventually ended up saving Priscilla’s life. I think the difference can be attributed to the fact that the doctor wasn’t involved in the life of Furlong, nor did he possess the same genetic disorder as Patrick and Christopher, which caused a lack of empathy. Because Jill and Priscilla shared the same condition (although it was displayed differently), Jill found common ground with a stranger and displayed empathy, as they both knew what it felt like to be different from other people.
I think a huge ethical error in the Mother Courage article was that the doctor blamed the mother for having a second child. Another big issue is that it was actually a genetic mutation and not a disease. Blaming the mother and telling her what she “should have done” is not only extremely rude, it’s just plain wrong. The biggest difference between Jill and the doctor is that Jill does everything in her power to help others and to help get her family properly diagnosed. Jill had the motivation to learn more about the severity and lack of research on the disease her and her father have.
One of the errors that was made ethically from the mothers courage article was the blame for the mother. The doctor blamed the mother for not knowing that it was a generative disease. But later was stated that it can appear spontaneously. In the Jill Vile article she was an advocate for the disease even thought she would not be cured of it at all. She would agree to have her body donated for science and would also agree to have her family studied if they were affected as well.
One of the biggest ethical errors made in the article was when the first doctor attempted to blame and criticize the mother for choosing to have children. The gene was in fact a mutation and was not present in her family’s genetics, contrary to what the doctor thought. The difference in insight between this doctor and the insight shown by Jill Viles is clear. Viles did everything in her power to spread awareness by researching and helping others. Jill Viles not only helped herself and her family but she eventually dedicated most, if not all, of her time to developing a cure to aid future generations.
In Mother Courage, the doctor that Pat Furlong visited berated her for having children and telling her she should have known. He insisted that there was no hope for them, all while one of the children was sitting on his lap. Instead of blaming her for her misfortune, he could have directed her to resources where she could have found help working through the situation and dealing with it instead of just accepting that they were going to die. In DIY Scientist, Jill Viles used her own knowlege and experience with her disorder to go out of her way and help someone who didn’t even know they needed the help. She reached out to someone who reminded her of herself and helped her find the medical resources that she knew this person might need.