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 that shown by Jill Viles?
Write your answers as a reply in the comments section
These articles were definitely interesting ones, and I say this primarily because of the fact that the first error the doctor made was him stating that it was possible to cure the disease in about eighteen months, when he had not even the slightest certainty that it was even possible. Another big thing that was a major problem in many ways was the doctor in the first article telling the mother of the patient that it was her fault that the boys had that disease. The doctor consistently kept up with the narrative that the mother was in the wrong for not knowing off the top of her head that this disease was a genetic thing in the family or that it ran in the family which if I remember, it actually did not. There were no tests or anything put in place or done to confirm these things that the doctor was actually saying, so the doctor just expected the mother to believe these statements. The fact that the doctor said she should have just aborted the second child after seeing something being wrong with the first one was completely out of pocket. This doctor was extremely in the wrong, and utterly disrespectful not to mention putting all the blame on the mother and not trying to soothe the mother and her fear.
There was an interesting difference between the doctor and Jill, though. One big difference between them was curiosity. Jill was one that wanted to know what her condition was and how she could work with it in order to continue her life in a way that was best for her. The doctor on the other hand in the Mother Courage article was one that did not really care much at all. This doctor just considered the case a lost cause and did much of nothing to prevent anything or help anything. Jill was not one that wanted to give up, she was ready to educate herself and continue fighting to actually live, while the doctor was extremely lazy and chose to put no kind of effort in to actually help the kids. Loved to point the finger and blame the mother with no evidence behind the accusations, but no actual effort was put in.
I think there was one clear ethical error while reading the Mother Courage article. When Furlong met with the Neurologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital she was scolded and berated as if her genetic makeup was something she could control. I understand that the doctor was operating with the knowledge he at the time, but to insinuate that the mother was at fault for not knowing her family history, when in fact that had no impact on the situation was an error. It stands to reason that all genetic history has to start somewhere so I don’t understand how the neurologist was so sure that this was not the beginning of this genetic mutation in their family.
While reading the articles the biggest difference that I saw between the neurologist that met with Furlong and Jill’s research is time. Between the 80s and 2016 there were a lot of medical advances and Jill had the advantage of increased knowledge on her condition. One of the first things Jill sent the author of the article Epstein was information about her family history, thus she already had more information on her condition than Furlong did until years after her sons had already passed.
Upon reading Mother Courage and DIY Scientist, it is very apparent how important of a role doctors can play in the diagnosis and development of a disease. Both Jill and Furlough had to push for the proper diagnosis of the diseases, even if it was unconventional. Something very unsettling and unethical that I noticed in the Mother Courage article was the visit with Furlough and neurologist at the Cincinnati Children’s center. For a doctor to tell a mother that she should have known and prevented a second pregnancy, it was completely uncalled for, and completely unprofessional. With the diagnosis of such a disease in two young children from the same family, you should be able to get support from a doctor. Given the lack of information and research on the matter, I would think that the doctor would have helped the family find any information on the condition, or tried to find something of hope to give the family. Blaming the mother for this disease in her children is like blaming any mother for any disease in a child – would that doctor say that to the mother of a child with leukemia? You cannot control your genetic composition, and you cannot predict which genes you will pass onto your children, it is not optional or even controllable. It is completely unethical for a doctor to make such statements, especially given that it was later discovered that this condition is not genetic in this scenario, but rather a mutation.
A major difference in the insight of Jill and the neurologist from Mother Courage about each of the conditions is optimism. Jill was trying to make the most of her life after discovering her condition, taking time to educate herself on her condition and what this means. She even took the had children and risked passing on her condition. The neurologist, on the other hand, gave the diagnosis and told the mother that there is no hope. There was no further information provided, and blame was shifted onto the mother. Jill reached out to many doctors, researchers, and other patients with potentially the same condition for information, whereas this neurologist provided nothing other than a diagnosis and guilt on the mother. Optimism was abundant in Jill in regards to her condition, but it was severely lacking in the neurologist.
In the Mother Courage article, the neurologist completely blamed Furlong for the disease her sons had. A doctors job is to help the sick, not to prosecute someone who did not know anything about the disease. After hearing that her children were going to die, the neurologist blaming it on Furlong could have sent her into a deep depression, which would have a negative effect on her children, who were already going through enough.
A big difference I noticed was that Jill cared, it was personal to her, if she had it her dad and sister had it too, she had a son she could have gave it to . the neurologist didn’t seem like he cared at all, he got to go home and never think about it again. Jill wanted to help people get answers which is more then the neurologist did when he was getting paid for it.
In the Mother Courage article, the ethical error made by the doctor would be of his lack of respect and viewpoint on the case and what he says to the mother. He claims that this condition/situation could have been avoided by not going through with a second pregnancy and even said she should’ve gotten an abortion. This is terribly wrong and very unethical way to handle a case as such. The doctors view of genetics was very black and white and unaccepting of various scenarios/cases. This is not the mindset a doctor should have.
A big difference between the doctors from Mother Courage and Jill is how each case was taken upon. In Mother Courage, the case was looked down upon and disrespected and had no desire to gather any insight. The exact opposite for Jill, where her case was welcomed and experimented on for years, attempting to figure out what exactly it was and how rare her family and condition is. Even celebrated after by putting the story of the new discovery in the paper. This is how each case should be handled as science and knowledge grows with each new idea, condition, and case.
The main ethical problem I noticed from the first doctor in Mother Courage was blaming the mother of the boys for their disease and telling her she should have aborted after seeing her one son had the disease. She was not able to get a diagnosis for the boys until they were both toddlers though. Another doctor made the mistake of promising a cure for Duchenne in 18 months, without knowing if this was even possible. Getting the parents hopes up for something that quite possibly, isn’t even achievable.
The difference between the first neurologist and Jill is that Jill believed she could find an answer, and kept working to figure it out- going to many different doctors and even sending blood to Italy for genetic testing. The Neurologist on the other hand, did no further research or testing on the boys and just blamed the mother for having children, even though she was not aware that she was a carrier for the disease. Jill worked hard for the conclusion she hoped to see, while the Neurologist did no extra work or study to find a solution.
The major ethical error the doctor made in Mother Courage was disrespect. After Furlong came in to diagnose her son, the doctor accused her of knowing it was a genetic disease (but in this case, it wasn’t) and told her that she should’ve known that her sons would end up that way. How Furlong should’ve gotten an abortion after the first one didn’t end upright. The doctor did work with the limited knowledge and technology that they had in the 80s, but it doesn’t give the doctor the right to up and blame Furlong for it being her fault that her sons ended up having Duchenne.
The difference I read between the doctor and Jill is that Jill was more enthusiastic. Like said by fellow classmate, Madeline Roberts, time is a big difference. I see that Jill has studied and put together her beliefs and theories together when handing it to David Epstein. Jill having this increase in knowledge in her own condition grew an enthusiastic trait that made her want to improve her life. The doctor from Furlong’s story was rude and didn’t even want to help and blamed her for giving birth.
Doctors in Mother ignored the mother’s questions about finding out the truth until it was really late. Then one doctor blamed the mother. Which isn’t fair because if the families only had females, they wouldn’t know they are carriers of the gene until it was too late. Or like in the article the mother didn’t know she had the gene because it was a mutation that appears later.
A doctor should know to check the patients for other things, and do other tests besides just looking at the patient to see if he is laughing and smiling and solely focusing on the mental function. The delayed walking and the lack of being able to hold themselves up, should have shown a quicker response to the motor abilities. The patient wasn’t progressing with normal motor skills.
In the DIY Scientist, The doctor didn’t explain things to her and really explain what was the problem. She didn’t know some basic answers about life expectancy and what gene was. She knew she had a genetic disease since she was a child, or she knew she was different since she was a child. Jill’s doctors would do the normal muscle tests, but she needed more answers. Where Mother Courage doctors, were very dismissive and very pessimistic. While there is a time limit for the patients, the patients were not even close to hospice yet, so giving up should not be an option.
These articles were very interesting reads. The clear ethical error that I saw in the Mother Courage article was the doctor berating the mother for her genetic make-up and to tell her she should have aborted one of her children. There was no way she could have possibly known she was a carrier for the disease unless she had had a full panel done. The doctor attempt to do things however was constrained by the genetics knowledge of the 1980s.
The biggest difference between the two articles that I see is time. Science has developed leaps and bounds in a decade or two. Also, Jill is so positive in trying to figure out her disease, even when doctors didn’t believe her. Jill worked hard for the conclusion to come out in her favor, while the neurologist did nothing.
There are some extreme differences between these individual articles. The doctors in the Mothers Courage article were all extremely close-minded on how the mother was feeling. They were also extremely ignorant. It was extremely unethical for the doctors to be putting the mother down for having a second child. I was baffled to see that one of them had even said that the mother should’ve gotten an abortion after knowing she was going to be having another boy. Those words shouldn’t ever leave anyone’s mouth, especially not from a doctor’s. People working in hospitals are supposed to be supportive of all their patients and want the absolute best for them. I felt like all the doctors in the Mother Courage article were insensitive and dismissive to the situation the mother was put in and even towards the children. They were all ignorant to help this mother raise awareness of the problems and they wanted to shut her up. It is disappointing to see this woman struggle so much just to get some attention for her dying boys.
Unlike the doctors mentioned in the Mothers Courage article, the doctors in the DIY Scientist article were determined to find answers. They put extreme time and energy into answering questions. They had even sent blood off to other parts of the world to get tested. in the DIY Scientist article, Jill had spent years trying to find explanations for the case versus the Mother Courage article where the doctors merely dismissed the case and stopped all testing. Jill clearly showed more interest and determination for answers in comparison to all the doctors mentioned in the Mother Courage article.
In the “Mothers’s Courage” article the doctors were extremely unethical and helpful. No one was willing to help due to the lack of money and brushed Pat off. The one doctor refused to broaden his viewpoint and took the easy way out, blaming the mother for having the boys when the disease is genetic. He continued to tell the mother she made a mistake not getting an abortion. This man did more harm than anything. Pats case was merely glanced at then no longer further examined.
Jill’s case was approached differently her case was thoroughly examined and experimented on for years. Her family and her condition were of great concern to the doctors. Society will never be able to expand its knowledge on science on and medical topics unless the time is taken to actually care and closely examine these rare cases.
Case should be handled like Jills with concern so that more people can be helped.
When I read the Mother Courage article, I noticed many ethical errors that the neurologist made towards Furlong. The neurologist told Furlong that it was her fault her sons inherited Duchenne and that she should have known about her family medical history and insinuated that she was a bad mother for having children in the first place. He had no right to blame her or tell her she should have aborted the second son as if her genetics are her fault. She clearly does not understand what was going on, which is why she came to the neurologist in the first place.
In the DIY Scientist, The difference in insight between the doctor and Jill was that the doctors did not seem to care too much about her condition at all. They would push her off, saying she didn’t know what she was talking about and that she was just a student so there was no way she could know what condition she was in. Jill was determined to find out what was going on with her and her father when the doctors did not seem to take any interest in her condition.
In the Mother Courage article there are a few major ethical errors that the doctor made. First, he told Furlong that there is no hope and that her children are going to die. That is very unprofessional and not something that should be said in any scenario. Second, he was blaming her for giving the disease to her sons when he didn’t even have the proper information of what caused them to have it.
The outlook of the doctor and Jill Viles is completely different. The doctor was negative about everything, not very open-minded to hearing about Furlongs family history and had no compassion. Jill was very positive about her situation and wanted to learn more and share her knowledge about her disease so people could relate and scientists and doctors could have a better understanding of how this disease works so they can help others.
The ethical problem I first noticed in the Mother Courage article was that the doctor not only told her that she shouldn’t of had a second child, but blamed her for her sons having the disease. The doctor was very disrespectful. It was not her fault that her sons got the disease and the doctor has no right of telling a woman what she should/shouldn’t have done for a problem she didn’t know she had. That is in no way helping her or her sons out, but making the problem worse.
The difference in the two articles was that in the DIY article, Jill worked hard to find solution instead of doing not much of anything and blaming the patient for having kids.
These articles were extremely interesting and insightful into different perspectives of the medical field. The common denominator between the two stories would be the shameless drive to beat/understand the diseases. Both were regular women who shared a passion for science and plagued with the difficulty of bearing a disease that even top scientists were unable to understand. The neurologist in the Mother Nature story had to have displayed appalling behavior for a person who took the medical oath in service to his patients. There was no benefit in belittling a mother in front of her child on how her genetics played out. However, as with every inspiring story there had to be a pivotal moment in people’s life to ignite their passion. One surprising thing about both articles is the lack of support initially to support these women. While their endeavors may have appeared crazy, most people who have reached the level of being a doctor or research at some point had to convince the universities that they were “passionate” about science and/or patient care. The articles came from two different perspectives: one of a parent and one living with the disease. Both were driven and attacked the issue through various ways. One chose to actively fight for it and another studied about a topic so in depth that she could recognize it through google images. Both were met with objections: rude unnecessary comments, dismissals, rejections, giving up but when a disease affects you to the point of losing loved ones, most of these are nothing more than annoying mosquito bites. At the end of the articles it made me think about what new possibilities are we overlooking due to lack of investment, research interest and for simply lacking curiosity.
The Mother Courage article was interesting as it portrayed a doctor that did not really care about the boys’ condition and determined that they had a one-way ticket to death. Unfortunately, I do feel like that is how medicine is nowadays, and that it is why it is important to get a second, or even third opinion. The doctor was unprofessional and even went ahead to say that the mother should have had an abortion, which is completely insensitive. In the other article, Jill used her disease as an empowerment tool. Instead of it bogging her down and making her feel helpless, she used it as an opportunity to learn more and become an advocate.
This is a very sad article involving a mother that had two young boys with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. The primary first error when doc Mrs. Furlong made a trip to see a neurologist at Cinnannati Children’s Hospital with the boys to get a diagnosis. The doctor berated and scolded her that she should of known about this. then he tells her that it is a familial disease meaning that she should have known that it was in her family and it is carried by the mothers X’s chromosome. The doctor told her to take her her boys home since there is no cure, take the children home and love them, since they are going to die. Then a doctor Hoffman made an announcement that he could cure Duchenne in eighteen months. Not many believed but any hope the parents were willing to try. Mrs. Furlong did all she could to help her two boys who eventually died from the disease.
With both articles the difference between Mrs. Furlong and Jill Vile’s is that it all dealt with time. With Furlong she had to deal with a doctor that berated her and didn’t want to do anything more to help her boys but to send them home to die. Furlong went looking for treatments and potential cures for her boys. Jill Vile’s story she was looking for answers to her condition. It took her years to gather enough information to finally get the diagnosis she needed. She was pretty sure what it was but wanted a doctor to give her the final diagnosis she needed. she was pretty what sure what it was but wanted a doctor to her the final diagnosis which was by a Italy that found mutated gene LMNA, that is related to to Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy. All I can say Jill never gave up on her search to find the cause and what was related to between her and Priscilla, a Canadian sport athlete, who also has Lipodystrophy.
I thought that the Mother Courage article was a very interesting read. Pat Furlong’s resolve and determination to help her sons and other children affected by this particular disease was inspiring. One particular thing that stood out to me in the very beginning of the article that was very unethical was how Furlong was treated when her children were first diagnosed with this genetic disease. The doctor was completely insensitive to her and her situation regarding her children’s state. He essentially blamed the whole thing on her for not knowing even though there was no way for her to have known in the first place, then he had the audacity to tell her she should have aborted her second child. This was a shock to me because the doctor had no empathy for her and told her that her children were a lost cause to give up hope for them to live.
Compared to the DIY doctor story the differences were apparent. In this story there seemed to be more empathy and hope. They were willing to put more effort into helping her and educate her on what was going on. She was able to learn a lot and help others gain vital information that was not readily available to them.
According to Furlong, the Cincinnati neurologist told her there was no hope for her sons and blamed her for not knowing they had the disease. He suggests she should have aborted her pregnancy which was completely unprofessional and disgusting.
I think the Furlong’s and Viles’ condition was looked at differently because of two things; lack of research and misogyny. Furlong was dismissed and did all the work on her own while professionals were more accepting of Jill’s disease.
The doctor from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital described in “Mother Courage” behaved in a wildly unethical and unprofessional way. He berated Furlong and told her that she should have taken action to prevent a second pregnancy, or alternatively aborted her second son. Before this time, she was completely unaware that her children could inherit Duchenne from her. There was no familial history of the disorder, it had mutated by chance. Even if she was aware of this which is an absurd expectation, it seems likely she only experienced the mutation on one of her X chromosomes. So if she had another boy, there was still a 50% chance he would not receive the disorder and live a healthy life. Just in general, telling a mother that she is in the wrong to carry her baby to term is not a practice I would associate with ethical medical professionals.
Jill exemplified the qualities of a proper medical professional much more than the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital neurologist. Rather than shaming over the past, she put her effort into creating a better future. She worked hard to learn about her own condition and help others, such as when she got her dad into a cardiologist and saved him when his heart rate dropped below 30 bpm. After reading these articles, I want to be more like Jill and pick up her virtues. I’m also going to put in effort to make sure I do not act like that neurologist.
The major ethical error in the Mother Courage article that we read was the lack of empathy and respect toward Furlow and her family. The first major red flag I noticed was when she first started taking the children to hometown offices because she had a concern for their health and all doctors said they were fine, even though Furlow noticed delayed motor skills and other issues. If these doctors would have just taken the time to run some tests to rule out all possibilities of anything being wrong with them it could have saved this family from going through a lot of trouble and worrying. Another major ethical error was the doctor blaming Furlow for this genetic condition happening to her children, saying that she should have known better that it was all her fault and that she should have aborted the children. That is simply out of line to ever say anything like that to anyone let alone a mother who just received information that her children have a fatal disease, one that she has no genetic history or knowledge of.
The major difference between the Mother Courage story and the DIY scientist story is the time and effort initially invested into the patient’s care. In the mother courage story, no time was initially invested, whereas in the diy scientist article, Jill put her all into figuring out exactly what the issue at hand was, she spent time taking tests and looking for an explanation as to what was wrong.
In the article titled: “Mother Courage”, Mrs. Furlong’s neurologist berated Mrs. Furlong for having kids when she possessed the Duchenne gene. No doctor should berate their patients especially since Mrs. Furlong had gotten the gene through a mutation and had know idea of her possession as none of her family had it.
Why there was such a big difference between the two articles is due to the fact that the doctors in Jill’s case actually intended on putting in the work needed to diagnose these families. They had the intention of giving the families answers to their questions and the Furlong’s doctor could only focus on berating her for not knowing something.
Both of the articles, Mothers courage and DIY Scientist were very interesting articles that brought about a lot of interesting points about the medical treatment for both Pat Furlong’s two sons and Jill Viles and her family. One of the major ethical errors that the doctors made in the mothers courage article was when the Neurologist told Mrs. Furlong that “There is no hope and no help-just take them home and love them. they’re going to die” In the DIY Scientist article, the doctors for Jill’s father misdiagnosed him and said that he had a mild case of polio, but then Jill’s doctor sent them to a clinic for further testing. The difference between the doctors in mothers courage and DIY Scientist articles were that the doctors actually tried to work with Jill and find a diagnosis, but the doctors didn’t know much about her condition. In mothers courage, I feel like the doctors weren’t very helping in trying to find treatments to help Mrs. Furlong’s sons. One doctor told Mrs. Furlong there is nothing they can do for her sons.
The approaches in which the doctors from each article took in order to “aid” these women were vastly different. Furlong, from ‘Mother Courage’, was treated more like a hopeless case and an outcast, compared to Vile, from ‘The DIY Scientist’, who was treated with the utmost care. In ‘Mother Courage’, Furlong was continually pushed aside like most mothers often are within the medical field. The majority of the doctor she spoke with refused to broaden their horizons when it came to Furlongs pleas. One doctor even went so far as to say that her son’s conditions were primarily her fault in the first place. This form of “bedside manner” that these doctors were performing is unethical, and it goes against what it means in becoming a medical professional in the first place. Vile’s situation was handled a lot more gracefully. Her case was welcomed with open arms and was watched closely for many years to ensure that everything that could have been done was accomplished. I understand that, unfortunately, some cases are dead ends with little to no light at the end of the tunnel. However, that does not mean that they should be given the cold shoulder. Every case should, at the very least, be considered, and if possible they should be treated as Jill Vile’s was.
I found both of these articles quite interesting and intriguing. One ethical issue within the “Mother Courage” article was how the doctor had essentially rejected the clients, not willing to run additional tests or refer them to someone who may know more than him. In addition to this, he unfairly accused and reprimanded her for having children and ‘not aborting the second child’ and to ‘just take them home and love them. They’re going to die.” This is not only unprofessional, but also unethical as a doctors duty to his clients.
The similarities between the articles is the idea of continuously researching, fundraising, and connecting with professionals to work towards finding a medicine to alleviate some symptoms or slow the progression, to join research trials/studies, and more. The difference is within “Mother Courage” Furlong had to fight, trick, and pry her way to get simple attention or responses. Jill, on the other hand, also continuously researched and advocated, but the attitude, outlook, and ethics of the medical professionals were far different with hearing her questions, running the tests, and doing the necessary procedures.
When reading the “Mother Courage” article, many things popped out and made me think. When checking her children why not check everything that might be on the doctors mind or even what the parents first questioned about? If a parent is seriously considered why wouldn’t the doctor check every possible illness or dystrophy that could be occurring in the body, instead of just checking the basics. In this article, every doctor she went to they all said, “not interested” “theres no cure” “why are you trying” (not exactly those words but we get the point).
In the DYI articles, the doctors and physician’s wanted to fight and beat any disease that was on the topic of the article. The doctors had the same fighting mind set that Pat had with her children that were dying but in her case majority of the doctors didn’t care.
The articles we read this past were very interesting and eye-opening about how important it is that healthcare providers listen to patients and the family members of patients. Because although doctors have a degree in medicine, they do not have the whole picture of a patient’s health just by looking at their chart and talking to them for five minutes.
The major ethical error that a doctor made in the Mother Courage article was scolding Pat for having her second son, saying she should have prevented the pregnancy or aborted the pregnancy. He blamed her saying she should have known when there was no history of Duchenne in her family, and she had been the one fighting for help from doctors over the years.
The difference of doctors between the Mother Courage article and the DIY Scientist article is that the doctors told Pat that there was nothing wrong with her sons and sent them home. While the doctors in the DIY article sent Jill to the Mayo Clinic. Even though the doctors at the Mayo Clinic were stumped they continued to run tests on their entire family until they discovered something that was off. Although they couldn’t figure out exactly what was going on with Jill and her family, they did not just send them home saying they were fine.