Read the Mother Courage article and the DIY scientist articles. What major ethical error did a doctor make in the first article? How do you attribute the difference in insight between this doctor and Jill Viles?
Write your answers as a reply in the comments section
The major ethical error the doctor made in the first article was saying he could cure the disease in 18 months when he had no certainty that he could. The scientist seemed very negative about outcomes unless there was huge funding, which makes sense because finding cures for this type of stuff is expensive. Jill seemed more positive and hopeful, and put in way more research on her own than Furlong. Jill also seemed to know that there was very little chance of s cure for her.
I wasn’t too sure of which doc was being refrenced, so I assumed Sweeny because he promised a fix in 18 months. But the first doc Furlong saw who told her she should have got an abortion also seemed a bit unethical saying that as well
The doctor in the Mother Courage article preceded to tell her patients mother that it was her fault the boys were sick with this disease. She insisted that the mother was negligent for not knowing the disease was in her family (even though it wasn’t). Additionally, the doctor made these assumptions without running any tests to confirm that the disease actually ran in the family. This is very different than the approach Jill Viles took. Jill took it upon herself to research and educate herself about the possible diseases. She reached out to many people and ended up saving two lives because of her work. The doctor in Mother Courage, unlike Jill, gave up hope and in the end the boys died from Duchenne. I believe Jill was so passionate about helping rather than blaming (like the Mother Courage doctor) because she related to the issue personally, and knew others who’s health was at risk.
The major form of negligance the doctor made in the first article was lack of care and knowledge of the genetic condition – Duchenne. As we learned from ‘DIY Scientist’, genetic conditions can all be slightly different for each person and are always worth researching. Heavy expression in the seventh paragraph of Mother Courage shows the lack of support or interest by the doctors. After diagnosis they blamed the mother for negligence in partaking of a second pregnancy and having little knowledge of genetic muscular distophy. “Duchenne is classified by the World Health Organization as a rare disease, and scientists often see little incentive to specialize in such diseases, because few research dollars are available (par. 10).” Due to the lack of funds rare diseases remain to recieve little or no research. For that reason we have a small database on the topic. The doctors failed to take advantage of a rare opportunity to not only help this family, but others in the current and future population suffering from this same genetic condition.
The difference of insight between Jill Viles and the doctor was their point of view. Viles herself was dealing with a genetic condition, while Pat Furlong was not. However, Viles was never told that she was going to die, just that she was wrong. That alone motivated her to prove to everyone that was right. She was aware that all knowledge was available to her if she was willing to look for it, her spirit was still intact. However, from the beggining the Furlong’s spirit was crushed. She was automatically convinced there was nothing that she could do, and it was all her fault. Although in both cases doctors made unethical choices, Mother Courage got it the worse. There is always hope and room for research.
The doctor in the first article blamed the disease on the mother (Pat Furlong). He told her it was her fault because her two boys had a genetic disorder. She didn’t have a family history of the disorder, so how could she have known this could’ve happened? The doctor told her she should’ve aborted her second child after she “figured out” what was wrong with her first son, even though she didn’t know until she took her younger son in. The doctor was rude and didn’t try to calm the mother’s nerves and fears. Instead he placed the blame on her and made her feel like a terrible mother for bringing two boys with diseases into this world.
The difference between this doctor and Jill Villes was hope and curiosity. Jill wanted to know what her condition was and how she could continue on with her life. The doctor in the “Mother Courage” article didn’t want to put the work in to save, what some would call, a “lost cause”. Jill was curious and ready to fight. The doctor was lazy and didn’t want to put any effort into these kids’ lives. He just wanted to diagnose and collect his check.
The major ethical concern from Mother Courage was that the doctor in the article blamed Furlong reproducing when she she should have known about her disease. It came about that Duchenne in her family was not passed down from genetics, and the doctor incorrectly assumed that it was the mother’s fault. It is unethical for a doctor to assume that a patient understands genetics, as well as blaming someone for passing on those assumed genes. The physician should have tested and educated Furlong about the disease and warned her and her other family members of the disease. The physician did little research on the disease and then made false claims about it to patients. This is unlike Jill in the DYI Scientist article. Jill did lots of research and used backed data to make her self diagnosis. Jill consulted many doctors and researchers to correctly diagnosis herself and used data and other scientific findings to make the diagnosis. Jill was understanding of her diagnosis and prognosis and remained optimistic about life and her disease. When she believed that Priscilla had a similar issue, she consulted others and used data and research to make her claims. This is far more ethical than the doctor in Mother Courage, as Jill did not make blanket statements, and used a caring and helpful attitude when trying to diagnosis and help Priscilla.
This article was very hard to read because of the constant “no”s and disrespect Furlong received when she was only trying to help her children and others suffering like hers. The ethical error that stood out to me the most was when she first learned about her son’s disease. The doctor proceeded to blame her for the sickness of her sons, the article states “The doctor upbraided her… for having had a second boy. “ ‘You should have known about this,’” (Colapinto). Not only was this woman distraught because she just learned that two of her sons have a fatal disease, but now the doctor is trying to blame her. Furlong had no past knowledge about this genetic disease nor was there family history to prove she was a carrier.
I believe the biggest difference between Jill and Pat was their point of view. Both these women worked to bring awareness with hope of a cure to their diseases. Pat was dealing with it because her son’s were the ones sick, while Jill was dealing with it because she was sick.
Colapinto, J. (2020). Mother Courage. Retrieved 31 August 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/mother-courage-john-colapinto
The major ethical error that the doctor made in the Mother Courage article was falsely accusing Ms. Pat Furlong of giving birth to her son even though she should have been aware that she had family members that had Duchenne syndrome. The doctor claimed that she carried it down through her genetics. This ended up not being true however which makes it even more unethical. It is also wrong to shame someone for reproducing just because their child could possibly have a genetic medical condition. This is almost the exact opposite of Jill Viles situation that was explained in the DIY Scientist article. Jill did extensive research and did not take no for an answer. She read so hundreds of pieces on different conditions and disorders and did not ever jump to conclusions. She was patient and made sure she was positive before sharing her findings with anyone else. Unlike the doctor in the first article that made premature assumptions, Jill used research and blood tests to back up her theory and she reached out to doctors in Italy to even further prove her self.
There were several ethical dilemmas in the mother courage article. For starters that doctor berating her and telling her she should have aborted her child was horrible. Telling her that she was the cause for this disease was enough, he did not have to make her feel horrible for it. Then that geneticist French Anderson made two ethical mistakes. He promised a cure in 18 months, which was not good, you can’t promise something that you can’t provide. Not to mention the other ethical issue he is involved in, the sexual assault of a minor that that article mentioned he’s serving time for.
The main difference I see between Jill and the doctor in Mother courage is they all gave up so quickly. Jill put in the effort to get a diagnosis and figure out what caused it. The rude doctor who told Furlong she should have known didn’t do anything but ridicule her. If he had simply looked into her family records he would have seen that there was no family history. Jill spent a lot of time focusing on family history and connecting it to her problems. The pervert doctor in prison did nothing but lie to people, probably to get some attention for his ego.
I see a lot of similarities between Furlong and Jill, they never gave up and they weren’t only in this for themselves.
There were several major ethical errors made within the article; The one that caught my eye the most however was when the doctor from the Mother Courage article when the Doctor began blaming Furlong (the mother) for having children, being under the assumption that she knew about her genetic history off the bat. The icing on the cake was that he was rude about it as well, which is just horrendus patient care ettiquite.
The difference between the unethical doctor in the Mother Courage Article, and Jill Viles from the DIY scientist article, is that the doctor from the Mother Courage article was quick to give up and berate the trying couple at every turn. He made little to no effort to aide the duo in trying to convince others to join their cause or doing solo research. Jill on the other hand, managed to not only do thousands of hours of medical research on her own while being considerably disabled, but she also managed to interpret, communicate, and convince professionals that what she had discovered was both valid and of value. Jill might’ve lacked the credentials of a medical professional, but she is the incarnate of the spirit of what drives people to become medical professionals.
An ethical error that a doctor made in Mother Nature was stating that it was Furlongs fault for her boys being sick. The neurologist assumed that Furlong was aware of the genetic condition that she was a carrier of. The doctor wrongly assumed Furlong’s family history by stating that this disease runs in her family. This doctor really broke the ethical barrier by stating that her children will die and that she should have had an abortion.
A difference in insight between the two was that Jill’s Emery-Dreifuss condition wasn’t a death sentence. Christopher and Patrick were expected to die in their twenties from Duchenne’s. Doctors were more willing to help Jill because there was a better chance for success. More was also known about her disease. In Furlong’s case, in depth research for Duchenne’s disease had never been done before. There were little doctors thought they could do, they didn’t want to waste their time.
The physcian in the Mother courage article insisted that it was the mothers fault that her children had this diseases making her feel like it was her fault. She was was not being empathetic at all and insisted that the mother should have aborted the baby and that she shouldn’t have had another baby knowing that they could potentially have this disease as well. Another mistake the doctor made was making a diagnoses without actually conducting any test. While the children were showing all the signs and symptoms of this disease, she still should have ran the test to confirm.
Jill actually took the time to get a better understanding of the disease rather than being so dismissive. She educated herself and reached out to as many people as she could to learn a lot and to try and save lives. The Doctor in Mother of Courage was pessimistic and dismissive. She was not trying to find a solution for the mother or the boys and intern they ended up passing away. The physician in the Mother of Courage was not trying to find a solution or was not willing to learn more about the disease like Jill.
The ethical error the doctor made in the first article is that he told the mother that she should have aborted her second son and then continued to blame her for her sons’ diseases. That was out of his jurisdiction, telling her that did not help the situation at all. Also, he never gave the boys a fighting chance. In the second article Jill Viles insight is much different than the doctor. This is because Viles lives with this disease everyday. She has studied and researched for countless hours looking for her condition specifically. While the doctor has studied she has looked at a broad range of genetic mutations not Viles’ case specifically.
There were a couple of unethical errors that were made by the doctor. First, he began by saying that she needed to take the boys home and love them because they are going to die. The doctor had only looked at the boys, he had not ran any testing to make such a bold statement! Second, the doctor began to blame the pat furlong for this terrible situation that she was in. He said that she should have aborted her second child because she should have known about this disease. When in fact her family members or herself had no medical history of this disease! He was wrong in all aspects of handling this situation and I would not be surprised if she filed some type of grievance against the doctor.
Jill Viles motivation to find out and cure this disease, that not only has plagued her life but her family’s, was on higher plateau than that of the doctors. The way she saw it was this was her life and people can do extraordinary things when their back is against the wall. Jill dedicated her life to learning about something that effected her everyday life so she was able to see the clues in the cracks. The doctors she saw had not dedicated their studies to such rigorous leaning schedule as she did, so it was easy for them to disregard the situation!
There were several ethical errors in the Mother Courage article, but one that I found was the most absurd was when the doctor told the mother that she should have known about her sons disease and should have aborted him. As a doctor, learning about a family history should be something important when determining illnesses. The doctor should have realized by then that there is something more into the case then just simple genetics, as in when genetics aren’t always the same or can have different or random variations, which the doctor should have been taken more seriously then how they should have.
The main difference between Jill and the doctor is their belief in the case. Jill in the article put years into research trying to find what was going on with her sons and trying to find ways to help, but the doctor was too lazy to truly put any effort into the case. If the doctor would have put as much effort as Jill did for her sons’s cases, the outcome may have turned out differently.
In Mother Courage, the first doctor’s ethical error was that he didn’t even run any tests before confirming that what the boys had was Duchenne. The second one that confirmed the boys’ condition made the big ethical error of telling Furlong that there was no hope or no way to save the boys, so she should just take them home and love them. The same doctor then went on to tell her that she should have known about this genetic condition as it is usually passed down, and that she should not have had another child because of it or aborted it when in reality the mutation had not been passed down to her. This doctor differs from Jill in the sense that Jill took it upon herself to thoughroughly research what her disease could be so she could be properly informed , unlike the doctor that just took one look at the boys in mother courage and diagnosed them without tests. Their outlooks are also very different. The doctor in Mother Courage supported giving up on the boys and their disorder, while Jill reminded positive and proactive to find ways to help both herself and others, similar to Furlong.
In the “Mother Courage” article, the doctor who first diagnosed the boys with Duchenne made many ethical errors. He did a brief exam of the boys before diagnosing them with this life altering, horrible disorder. The doctor should have ran tests, collected a family history, and taken the time to get to know the boys and the family. Instead, he made a quick diagnosis, basically called it a death sentence and did not offer to help at all, and most insane of anything, he BLAMED the mother for it. He blamed her for not knowing her oldest son had the disorder before getting pregnant with her next son and said she should have ABORTED him. I mean, for anyone to tell a person that, let alone your doctor who you’re supposed to trust, is not only unethical, but also inhumane.
Now in the second article “The DIY Scientist,” Jill Viles took the complete opposite approach. As a woman affected with the Emery-Dreifuss disorder, she took it upon herself to not give up and research the disease, raise money and awareness for it. She did not blame, she did not belittle, she did not assign herself or others a death sentence. Instead, she actually saved 2 lives, one of whom’s was her dad. Without her passion to bring awareness to this genetic mutation and figure out a cure, he would have lost his life. And she wasn’t even a doctor! Just a well informed, hugely passionate and caring individual who brought her own personal experience to the table.
It was a very sad case in Pat Furlong, the major error in “Mother’s Courage” was the doctor berated her for having a second son knowing she had this gene for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She tried everything to find a cure for her two boys.
In the second article DIY, was about Jill Viles, who had to fight several doctor and researchers to agree on diagnosis, which did a lot of research on Emery-Dreifuss dystrophy which was confirmed by an Italian research group. She wasn’t happy with diagnosis she went onto do the research with an athlete Priscilla Lopes-Schliep that they were able to get an confirmed diagnosis from a doctor at University of Texas of Southwestern Medical Center, that specialized in lipodystropy, Dr Abhimayu Garg MD, it was found that they had Dunnigan type partial lipodystropy. There is no cure for either diseases at the present time.
I felt the major problems with The Mother Courage article was that the doctors told her it was a mistake she made by having not one but both children. They she was at fault for making them sick. The doctor then also concluded that the children had this disease without doing tests. There was also little to no help or support given to her or her children the doctor just said they would die. Then when she traveled around and searched for help little to none was really given freely. The other article about Jill Vales was that she was the one with the condition. She had to deal with the problems. Jill never was in a crushing situation of death. She definitely struggled but the difference between the two was that a mother was told that her own flesh and blood were going to die before her very eyes. This has to be a pain that is absolutely vanquishing. The differences between the stories is that a mother was told that she was the cause for why her children were going to die. The other was about taken what others see as different and bad to a strength and fight back.
The main ethical error that stood out to me from the Mother Courage article was how the doctor blamed Furlong for her negligence or the disease and having children even though she “should have known” that she had the disease. This was incredibly difficult to fathom; how could a doctor blame someone for a genetic disorder? Additionally, how could a doctor morally tell a mother that she should have aborted her children over a genetic disorder that was not only uncommon, but hadn’t even run in her family.
The difference in insight between this doctor in Jill Viles is quite astounding in that the doctor had no hope and could offer no help, whereas Jill Viles was full of hope (for the most part) and helped at least two, if not more, people with the same disorder as her. Jill Viles knew her disorder did not have much hope to a positive end, but still work endlessly to find answers no only for herself, but others. She did not give up, unlike the crude doctor Furlong unfortunately encountered.
The major ethical error made in the first article is that the doctor told Furlong that she should have known better than to reproduce because of this disease when she had no idea that it was even a possibility. She had no family history of it, so to assume that the mother knew and you risk this for her children is uncalled for.
Jill, on the other hand, was a strong advocate for herself and took it upon herself to do her own research to try and come up with solutions to what was wrong with her. The personal insight she had because she was the one actually experiencing the medical problem was different than that of Furlong because it was a second-hand perspective. The mother (Furlong) was watching her children suffer and could only do so much and explain so much, as opposed to Jill who did everything on her own.
In the article Mother Courage the major ethical error the doctor made was not only placing the blame on mother Furlong for her sons health conditions, but also discouraging the entire family about the current and future health and lifespan of the sons as well.
The attribution of the difference in insight between the doctors in the two articles is that Jill Viles practiced medicine and treated her patient ethically and morally sound, like any doctor that takes the oath to save lives should.
In the article Mother courage the major ethical error the doctor made is that the doctor was putting everything on the mother and was telling how she should’ve known about this disease and should have had her kids aborted. That she should do nothing but go home and love them and how they were just gonna die anyways. The doctor barely did any tests and it is his job to do tests even if he may know what disease it was, he should’ve have also asked for the families medical history. In general he should’ve done more and not have judged her saying she should’ve just been responsible with the first son and find out if he had it and should’ve aborted the other.
The differences in insight between the doctor and Jill Viles is that the doctor did not do his job, was lazy, and just off put the whole situation. He is taking about another persons life and he was just wrong in every way, he should’ve have been doing his researcher right along side the parents. On the other hand Jill Viles refused to quit and did a lot of research on what she had and she did not just give up, she dedicated everything to finding out and improving herself and she was very patient with everything and was very determined. The thing that makes this great is that she was a highly educated women who wasn’t even a doctor and yet she managed to save lives and did not take no for an answer and most importantly did not dismiss and give up like the doctor in the other article she was more willing to do something about it.
In the Mother Courage article, a doctor made the ethical error of telling Pat she should have known about the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in her two sons, when it wasn’t in the family. The doctor didn’t give a thorough investigation into the boys and didn’t dive further into understanding the disease with Pat. The doctor simply shamed her and told her that they would die and to accept it. Assuming that Pat should’ve seen the disease coming, the doctor says she should have not had the boys at all which isn’t helping the situation everyone was in. It was crossing a line of belittling a parent who couldn’t have known the status of Duchenne’s in their genes because the mutation was spontaneous in her case.
In comparison, Jill Viles received similar treatment from her early on doctors because they couldn’t figure out what was going on and they didn’t dig deeper into her medical history. She was left to dig herself and make observations and ideas that doctors do. Overall, Jill’s doctors kept revisiting her condition, without knowledge of what it was, instead of dismissing it like Pat’s doctor did and most doctors dealing with Duchenne’s do. Jill’s persistence, much like Pat’s, is the reason why doctors didn’t give up very easily and kept reevaluating Jill’s theories. It is very interesting how much patients and parents of patients have to be advocates for themselves when it comes to rare diseases and not enough answers to their questions they have about their conditions.
It’s critical that doctors receive their inquiries and concern with direction and dedication to helping.
In the first article the doctor made an ethical error by accusing Furlong that the condition her son’s were in was because of her like she did this to them on purpose. Also telling her that she should have had an abortion and blaming the mother when she is already in a terrible situation. She told him many times that this disease was not in her family history but he insisted that it’s because of her this had happened instead of looking at the bigger picture. With Jill’s view she has hope and perseverance to keep trying while her doctor is telling her the opposite. This is because the doctor does not do enough to search into the history of her disease and to see maybe her case is different, just like Pat from earlier the doctor did not have an open mind to see maybe there is a different reason to why her son’s had this disease instead they were both arrogant in their fields.
In the first article the ethical issue was they doctor blamed the mother for the disease she passed down, unknowingly. That in and of itself is unethical, but so is a medical professional “blaming” something such as that on someone. Suggestion abortion or that parent has done some sort of harm purposely with a genetic disease goes against the oath doctor’s take as well as the profession. It is also unethical to make medical promises such as cures. That is something no doctor can make even with the smallest of diseases.
In the second article, Jill was not taking anything at face value and continued to research and learn all she could about the disease. This is what doctors should be doing when faced with something unknown. The doctor in the first article simply placed blame and made Pat feel guilty and as if she had done something purposely to her children. Jill was educated and took her profession seriously and acted in the best practice for her patient
I almost cried when I was reading “Mother Courage”; I am a father and automatically I put myself in Mrs. Furlong situation. On top of all of that, there was an idiot doctor blaming and upbraiding her for being a mother of two sons whom diagnosed with Duchenne disease. The doctor not only missed his mission as a doctor but he also missed his role as a human in this life. Instead of encourage and support the mother he split the dirt on her with no reason.
Jill’s situation by anyhow it was easer than Pat’s; Jill was fitting about herself, which by somehow easer than fitting about our own child. Such an unfortunate articles, situation, experience, or realty that we live in or with. They both, Pat and Jill had to do all of that work while they were under that pain and presser. I belive when human lose our ethics and values they become worse than animals.
Thanks a lot for sharing these articles in this class!
In the article Mother Courage, a doctor scolded Pat Furlong for having a second child after noticing some missed milestones in her first. He essentially blamed her for giving her children a genetic condition that she was not aware she would pass on. It is a doctor’s job to inform and help a patient in anyway they can and is not ethical or appropriate to blame a person for passing on a genetic condition.
This doctor was more concerned with assigning blame than figuring out the cause of the condition and possible treatment options. Jill was behaving like a medical professional in the sense that she was unsure of an answer and sought answers where the actual doctor was more concerned with who’s fault it was that a child had inherited a condition. The doctor lacked empathy and an understanding of their role in the medical profession
The dr that made the largest ethical mistake in this article was the one that blamed the mother for the disease which her children developed. Going as far as calling her negligent for not avoiding pregnancy or saying that she should have aborted the child which was in the room sitting on the mothers lap at the time. Even upon the mother telling the doctor that the disease wasn’t something that ran in her family they continued to just blame them for passing down the disease.