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
In the mother courage article. The doctor’s uneducated guesses and opinions were the ethical errors. The mother was looking for way to learn the diagnosis of both of her sons. She was constantly being told that there’s nothing that can be done to save her two sons and that they’re both going to die. The doctor made a mistake assuming that without even bothering to find a cure for her two sons. Another unprofessional statement was the fact that he was blaming her for birthing the child and telling her that she should’ve aborted it. A verbal attack was not what she wanted to hear.
DIY Scientist article was different. Jill Viles was a better doctor than the one in the mother courage article. She gathered information and did her own research for her situation. She didn’t give up just like Furlong didn’t give up and found a cure to her son’s Duchenne’s disease.
I agree because the doctor in the article told Furlong that she should have been well aware of this genetic disorder since it is familial and that she should have terminated her second pregnancy. I think this doctor wrongly blamed Furlong for having her second child because of the Duchenne symptoms being presented earlier in life and the prognosis is very despairing.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article told Furlong that she should have known about the genetic disorder because it is familial and that she should have terminated her second pregnancy. I think the reason why this doctor wrongly blamed Furlong for having her second child is because the symptoms of Duchenne exhibit early in life and the prognosis is very despairing. Jill Viles, on the other hand, has a condition that is less severe and fatal than Duchenne and the life quality of her father and brothers was not severely impacted at an early age, so she had a child regardless.
In mother courage’s article, the first doctor in their hometown, Middletown, Ohio, had assumed that there was nothing wrong with Furlong’s two sons, without doing proper examinations and experiments. The second doctor that Furlong was referred to was the Cincinnati Hospital, where the boys underwent proper examination and have been properly diagnosed. However, the neurologist’s “cure” or “solution” to the disease was completely unprofessional and unethical. The neurologist had informed Furlong that “There is no hope and no help—just take them home and love them. They’re going to die.” The doctor in this situation was blaming Furlong for giving birth to their sons by stating: “You could have prevented the second pregnancy, or you could have aborted the second pregnancy. ” In this situation, no mother would want to hear that they are RESPONSIBLE for their son’s death. It is the doctor’s responsibility to help their patients but in this case not only did they not help but they entirely did the opposite of what they were professionally trained to be doing.
There were similarities in both DIY Scientist and mother courage articles. In both articles, both Furlong and Jill refuse to accept their situations and have taken risks to improve the situation, by doing research, visiting multiple doctors, or doing whatever they could to find a “cure” or “solution” to the illness that they were facing. Jill collected information and did the research for her own situation. Both Furlong and Jill refused to give up on finding a cure.
In the Mother Courage article, the first doctor took unethical steps by assuming that there was no medical reason that her son’s were acting the way that they were. However, Furlong was still convinced that there was. The second doctor that Furlong encountered, was perhaps much more unethical than the first doctor. I would consider the second doctor to be much more unethical because he told Furlong that there was nothing that she could do, and that she should have known this and not have had a second son, she should have abstained from having another child or should have had the child aborted. No doctor should make a mother feel responsible or guilty for giving a child life, despite a life-altering disease. This was extremely unethical on the doctors part.
The doctors in Jill Viles case also did not think that there was anything wrong, similar to the first doctor in Furlong’s case. However through her own research, Viles was able to discover the disease that herself as well as other members of her family had as well. She became extremely knowledgeable about this condition, and followed up with several researchers and organizations in order to learn more and see what possible treatments there were for her condition.
In both cases, Furlong and Viles were extremely persistent in finding solutions to the conditions that were taking an effect on their lives. Despite the doctors not being readily available and eager to help their situations both Furlong and Viles remained determined.
In the ‘Mother Courage’ article, the doctor told Furlong she should have known she had a familial genetic disease, when in fact, she did not. It was a mutation that occurred spontaneously. As a result, the major ethical error he made was telling Furlong she should have known better after having the first baby boy, and should have chosen to prevent, or to abort the second baby. In addition he said there is ‘no help and no hope,’ and to love them because they were going to die anyway.
In the ‘DIY’ article, Jill chose to dive deep into her family history to see if others suffered with her same condition. She made it a priority to fully understand her mutation, what resources were available and how she could manage her own situation.
The difference in insight is remarkable. The doctor basically chose to ignore the boys’ condition, and easily gave up giving no direction to the parents, even as far as assuming there was nothing to be done for them. The doctor did not even offer any alternatives, or treatments to help the boys with other symptoms. He was just going to let them suffer and die. At least Jill had insight to realize there could be an abundance of resources and options available if she was willing to put in the work and advocate for herself. She knew if she did not at least try to understand her condition, she would suffer anyway.
In the first article, ‘Mothers Courage’, the first doctor that they saw used their opinions and seemed like they were uneducated on the subject that they were advising on. Without giving the sons a full examination and medical work up it would be very far fetched to say that they are okay and had nothing wrong with them. This is unethical and unprofessional.
The second doctor did do a proper examination and three days of testing. Well I am not a doctor so I don’t know how to tell heart breaking news to family I feel like the second doctor did not do his job by saying that there is no hope and they were surely going to die. This feels very unethical. Telling a mother that she should have aborted her baby is horrible.
On the other hand, in ‘The DIY Scientist’, Jill truly cared about the condition and wanted to help in anyway she could. She did not give false hope and told it how it was.
In the Mother’s Courage Article, beyond being inappropriately rude, the doctor lacked aby desire to carry out his duties, not just as a physician but man of science. The assumptions made by the doctor as fact is shameful. As a physician, your patients look up to you to give hope but in this case, he did the opposite. It’s not just unprofessional, it is unethical. If we compare it to Jill’s reaction, although the difference in circumstance is quite large, is the appropriate path any scientist or physician should take. Jill had the curiosity that drove her forward to understanding her disease and never giving up on herself. It’s through this curiosity that we manage to find new cures and get an understanding of every aspect of life.
The unethical decision the doctor made in “Mothers Courage” was assuming that since Pat had a genetic disease she should have known by looking at her family members who might have had the condition. This was unethical as the doctor did not address the fact that the genetic disease can appear spontaneously without any family history which was the case for pat. This led to the doctor being unethical as he blamed pat for being unaware of her family history and telling her she could have ended her pregnancy.
This was different in ” The DIY Scientist, the Olympian, and the Mutated Gene”, in this article we see jill also be told they didn’t think anything was wrong but after finding multiple doctors she finally found one who believed and found out she was in fact suffering from a genetic disease who called to inform her about her results.
This insight was different from pat’s experience. The doctor started patronizing pat and blaming her for the lack of information while Jill’s doctor called to inform her immediately about the dangers of her disease to make sure she was well informed.
In the Mother Courage article the big unethical error by the doctor was his lack of faith and research done for the Furlong boys. He blamed the mother for giving birth to the second one when she should have been aware of the family history of the Duchenne, when in reality she received the gene from a genetic mutation, which was rare. The doctors also did not run full examinations and just looked on a surface level and told Furlong her boys were normal. Furlong was forced to do research herself and travel around the country so that her boys could properly be taken care of.
Jill Viles took a different approach and put a lot of time and effort behind her diagnosis to full understand what she was going through and what measures she could take to at least know what went wrong. Her insight was much different to that of the doctors because she took the steps to not sit back and let herself suffer as the doctor would have let the Furlong boys, but to find various sources and reach out to people about her condition and fully grasp her diagnosis.
In the Mother courage article the doctor made an uneducated guess about the patients sons condition. There were no questions asked and assumptions were made that resulted in disrespecting the patient. The statement “you should have known about this before having children” and telling her she should have aborted the children when she knew she was having sons were also unethical statements. The doctor could have shown more compassion and offered a treatment regimen or a specialist. Whereas with Jill’s story, the doctors did not believe she had the genetic disorder she claimed as they did not have previous cases to compare symptoms to in females. So, Jill did all her own research and provided evidence of her reasoning’s. She reached out to people in Italy to prove she was correct on her diagnosis. She found doctors who would believe her and even got a job as an intern from all of her hard work. In both articles they experience pushback from doctors and in both articles they pushed through and were successful in their efforts. For the mother’s courage article that manifested as a research center. In DIY scientist that meant getting confirmation on the genetic disease she knew she had and help for new found friend
I was astonished when I read the section of the Mother Courage article in which the neurologist at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital assumed Mrs. Furlong had her two children with the knowledge that Duchenne ran in her family, and berated her for it. That assumption and poor choice of response was a major ethical error, and instead of informing her of her (albeit limited) options, he sent her home with nothing.
In the Jill Viles article, Jill was fully aware of her Emery-Dreifuss diagnosis, and the fact that there was a 50-50 chance any children she had could inherit the disease. She and her husband made the decision to have a child with this knowledge. It turned out well for them as their son did not inherit the disease, but a point could be raised that it may not have been ethical to have a child knowing the possibility, especially since she also knew at that point that her father had been affected.
The neurologist in the Courage article had suggested terminating the second pregnancy to prevent the onset of Duchenne. Jill Viles was aware of the hereditary risks and chose to have a child. She was very well-versed on the subject of her disease, and therefore made and educated choice.
Pertaining to the Mother Courage article, the doctor did all the wrong things. When it came to taking the appropriate steps to diagnose her two sons. They basically shifted the blame onto her for “her family history”. It’s not a doctors job to mitigate what if’s but to do their job correctly which they did not do so. However in the ”The DIY Scientist, the Olympian, and the Mutated Gene” I could tell that Doctor Jill Viles made an effort to find a solution to the disease. Although Viles had the original findings as the first doctor she was persistent . Through her persistence she becomes a lot more knowledgably and was able to take further steps then the Furlongs did to find possible treatments for Duchenne’s disease.
In Mother Courage, the doctor was unethical in the way that he said that the mother was responsible for the fate of her sons. Even after the mother had told the doctor that there was no family history the doctor remained adamant that the mother had passed on the genetic mutation. I believe the blame being placed on the mother and the doctor saying she should have aborted her second son was very unethical.
In Jill Viles case, the doctors did not know what was wrong with her, she wanted to find answers, however, the doctors could not help her, she had to self-diagnose and find more information about her condition herself.
In the first case, the doctors knew what was wrong, but wrongfully blamed the mother for the genetic condition and in the second case, the doctors did not know what was wrong with Jill.
In the Mother Courage article, one of the biggest ethical errors made would be the lack testing and examination done on the two boys when they were younger. Considering it wasn’t just one son but both, the doctors should have considered running some tests on the boys before one of them hurt their calf. It also was not great how the doctors also tried to make Furlong believe it was all her fault and she should have “aborted the second pregnancy” (and she didn’t even realize there was a genetic disease).
There was really no history or any knowledge of the genetic disease being passed in their family. In the DIY Scientist article, however, there was an issue in the past with Jills father having trouble walking as a kid and being diagnosed with a mild case of polio. This must have prompted the doctors to start testing Jill to see what is wrong. They weren’t able to figure out what was wrong exactly, but they didn’t just brush it off and say nothing seems wrong.
The major ethical error that the doctor made in the Mother Courage article was, The first doctor that saw the Furlong boys missed this diagnosis and were not able to see the symptoms or signs early on. The second doctor let his opinion and ego get in the way of being professionally adequate within this situation. This doctor falsely accused Furlong of knowing that she was a carrier of this disease and even went to the extent of saying that she should’ve aborted her second child knowing that her first child already had the disease. Instead of being a helpful educator and finding her resources to hart and help her cope with this hard news.
Through Jill Vile’s story, we see that the doctor does not do any further research to identify Jill’s diagnosis. Due to the fact that they only have research pertaining to men when it comes to this disease. Jill ends up taking things into her own hands and did the research herself and found resources to help educate herself and others on her self-diagnosis. Through both stories, both women did not sit back and let these diagnoses control their life. They furthered their knowledge on the issue to help educate themselves and others to try and find the best cure, as well as motivate others to help support people with this disease and find a community within it.
After reading the Mother Courage article, it appears to me that the medical team the parents were working with committed the major unethical error of failing to provide unbiased, nonjudgemental care to her and her sons. The doctor was essentially blaming the mother for her sons’ disease and even proposed that she could have ended her pregnancy to “save” their lives. The physician should not have been belittling the mother the way he did, nor should he have been trying to sweep her under the rug by telling her to simply “love” her sons because they’re going to “die anyway.”
In the DIY Scientist article, it was a matter of skepticism and reluctance to trust a teenager with her own basically “googled” diagnosis that held back some of the physicians during her encounter with them. This is a pretty typical response and would not be deemed unethical. However, Jill was able to prove to the doctors that her self-diagnosis was correct and not only helped to prolong her dad’s life, but also improved that of an Olympic athlete’s.
In both articles, we can see the clear persistence and determination by both women who stood up to their medical teams when they failed to or hesitated to believe in them. They used their unfortunate diagnoses as motivation to further research and help advance science.
The “Mother Courage” (2010) follows the story of Pat Furlong and her struggle to help her sons, along with others who suffer from Duchenne. This article portrays several instances of ethical error carried out by doctors. This error includes pushing off Furlong’s concern for her son’s health and safety without looking into the problem, shaming Furlong for carrying out her pregnancy, and not offering any additional resources or treatment trials once a diagnosis was made. Although all of these instances are unethical responses, the most unethical error was when the doctor told Furlong that she should have known about Duchenne, due to it being an inherited trait, and suggested that she should have aborted the pregnancy. The doctor should not have placed blame on Furlong, rather give her further options.
The article “The DIY Scientist” (2016) follows the story of Jill Viles and her discovery of her family’s history with Emery-Dreifuss. Throughout this article, Viles makes it her mission to understand why her arms and legs would not gain muscle or fat. After much research on the Emery-Dreifuss, Viles learns that this is what affects her body.
The difference in insight between the articles, “Mother Courage” (2010) and “The DIY Scientist” (2016), is extreme. In the article “Mother Courage” (2010), Furlong was left with no help. Although the doctor did not offer additional resources, Furlong worked hard to form an organization that raised money for research. In the article “The DIY Scientist” (2016), Viles had insight into her condition which allowed her to understand what further options could be taken. This allowed her to get in touch with specialists to fully understand the condition and further steps to take.
After reading the first article ‘Mother Courage’, one major ethical error that the neurologist made was insisting that she should have prevented the second pregnancy or should have aborted her pregnancy. He argued with the mother stating she “should have known about this” and should have done something about it before her child Patrick was born. Instead of doing a proper consult, he rudely addressed his patient and blamed her for the decision she made to have a second pregnancy, without asking her any questions and doing a full examination. He assumed she knew and had the disease, when in reality she learned that the mutation can appear spontaneously. She had to travel to medical centers around the world and do her own research, since the neurologist was only giving his rude and disrespectful opinion.
In the DIY scientist, the Olympian, and the Mutated Gene article, the situation was quite different. Jill wanted to learn about her condition and her family history of it from a young age. She brought home books for the library and did the research all on her own. She was able to self-diagnose herself, and even her father, of the disease. However, when she went to her neurologist with all of the evidence and research, he told her “No, you don’t have that”. She stated he didn’t care to even look at any of the papers and evidence she had brought in. Jill had to continue to prove herself to everyone that she had this genetic disease, and it was finally confirmed that she had it after shipping her blood in the mail to a hospital in Italy. In both articles, the patients were more determined than the doctors to get clarity, information, and answers for themselves, while the doctors also did not offer any advice and support.
While reading Mother Courage, one big instance stood out as being incredibly unethical practices. This is the determination made by neurologist saying “This is a familial disease; you should have known about this.” This is a huge assumption to make. They should have asked for family history to be able to rule out the likelihood of it being an inherited disease. In addition, to tell a mother of a sick child that they should not have had their second child or should have terminated the pregnancy is unfathomable.
A key difference between the doctor in the Mother Courage article and Jill Viles is that Jill’s motivation was based in both first-hand experience but also scientific curiosity. She wanted to look for solutions to ideas that seemed to be medically impossible. Her tenacity for answers even led to her father and Priscilla getting medical attention that they didn’t know he needed.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article was extremely unethical when addressing Furlong, and extremely unprofessional. In no way should someone seeking medical advice be told what the doctor had told Furlong. The fact that she is already distressed and coming to this doctor for answers and advice should be enough to keep him from saying such disgusting things. To “upbraid” someone for having a second boy after the first boy had Duchenne disease because she should have “known better” is rather gross and horrific, considering the boy is already alive and suffering from this disease as well. The doctor was also extremely unethical in saying that she should have aborted the second boy before he could be born so as to avoid the difficulties and early death that Duchenne often brings. The doctor should have offered advice which Furlong could realistically use or abide, and not tell her what she “should have done” once its way too late. The doctor’s advice would not have been any more ethical, however, had she been able to act on this advice.
In the case of Jill Viles in the DIY Scientist article, her doctors were not able to find a diagnosis for her, despite a rather thorough investigation through tests and other diagnosis efforts not only on her, but family members as well and doctors everywhere she went were stumped. Despite the lack of diagnosis, the effort and ethical approach was there, unlike Furlong’s experience with her doctor who was no help, and was instead rude, unethical and exacerbating.
In the “Mother Courage’s” article, the first doctor was in Middletown, Ohio, he supposed that with no official testing or experiments that the two sons were fine. Subsequently, the sons had a proper examination at the Cincinnati Hospital and were shortly later diagnosed. Unfortunately, the solution to the disease made by the neurologist was completely unethical. “There is no hope and no help—just take them home and love them. They’re going to die.” The doctor in this situation was blaming the mother for giving birth to her second son when saying: “You could have prevented the second pregnancy, or you could have aborted the second pregnancy.” The neurologist was actually holding the mother accountable for her son’s diseases. He even commented that she should have aborted the baby to save its life. This doctor should have been nicer and taken a different approach to telling horrible information. No mother wants to be told that she should just love her sons because they are going to die and it’s her fault.
Both articles, DIY Scientist and mother courage articles, we can see many similarities one being the persistence and determination in both women. Furlong and Jill refuse to accept their situation and stand up to the medical teams that refused to believe or help. They visited multiple doctors, found personal research, and did whatever it took to help the people they loved. These two women took the bad as motivation to keep fighting and not give up.
To me, the major ethical error the doctor made in the Mother Courage article was assuming a life with a disease has no value. He assumed the mother and child would have been better off not having lived at all rather than having to deal with muscular dystrophy. He was very wrong to believe a life that may be shorter and more difficult cannot be meaningful, fulfilling, well worth living. Jill Viles was much more similar to the mother in the Mother Courage article than the doctor. She was determined to learn as much about her disease to try not only to help herself, but also her family, and even others. She did not see a life not worth living, but she saw hope and was determined to gain as much insight into her condition as possible. Jill saw the value in life and wanted to use her insight to help as much as she could, and, in the end, she was able to help more than people with much more advanced educations and degrees and was definitely more helpful and insightful than the doctor in the Mother Courage article.
Reading the Mother Courage article, I could have listed a dozen morally unethical actions done by the doctor(s). However, the collective major errors were the lack of effort in diagnostic procedures and forced blame/shaming of the patient instead of blaming the “science/disease”. Instead of sitting down and empathizing/sympathizing with the situation and person enduring it; foul, ignorant and unprofessional statements were made and aimed in inappropriate ways. At the very least, the patient(s) deserved empathy and/or sympathy with some form of direction/plan to follow. After reading the second article I can see the difference of deliverance but I felt as if both articles left the patient with minimal factual insight and/or direction. One story had more of a foundational insight given but both stories faced hurdles that derived from the obligatory plan of action a doctor usually gives. Although both articles were disheartening, I did find the strength and determination from each to be inspiring.
In the article mother courage The first doctor was problematic and unethical due to the improperly explanation there is nothing wrong with her sons. Furlong then came across the alternate doctor at Cincinnati Hospital, this doctor continued to say there was nothing she could do about it and it was for a long‘s fault for bringing her sons into the world, but that it would too be her fault that they’ll die. No ethical doctor would have told a patient to abort their child for a genetic disease.
In the Jill/DIY article, Jill after being ignored by doctors and sent home like in Furlongs case. She saw it further explanation and dug into her family history to become familiar with the genetic mutation. Since doctors weren’t and she had began to find resources for herself instead of waiting for an insufferable answer from a doctor. In both cases all participating doctors were unethical and the response to something they simply didn’t know about.
I was taken aback at how presumptuous and disrespectful the doctor was to Pat Furlong in the Mother Courage article. Furlong was already going through a difficult time coming to terms with her sons’ medical conditions. So after the neurosurgeon at the children’s hospital confirmed the diagnosis of Duchenne and laid out a dire prognosis, just for him to then tell Furlong – an already stressed mother – that she “should have known about this,” and “could have prevented the second pregnancy, or … could have aborted the second pregnancy,” is abhorrently unethical. Especially as the doctor’s four-year-old patient was sitting right there on his mother’s lap. Doctors are supposed to provide care and comfort to their patients and their families, not guilt or shame them for something they did not know about.
The doctors in Jill Viles’ story were also not all that pleasant. They would not listen to her or take her seriously when she voiced her concerns and her thoughts on her medical condition. “Other people went to doctors and got solutions. That had never happened for Jill, so she started looking for answers on her own, the way a kid would … / ‘No, you don’t have that,’ Jill recalls the neurologist saying sternly. And then she refused even to look at the papers.” The doctor should not have refused to take a look. It is a doctor’s responsibility to provide patient-centered care and the voice and concerns of patients should be their foremost priority.
There was a difference in insight between the neurosurgeon from the Mother Courage article and Jill Viles since the former is against conceiving when a known genetic disorder runs in the family. Jill Viles differs from this because she was more than aware of her Emery-Dreifuss diagnosis, given as she did so much research on it. She knew there was a high chance of her children inheriting the disease, however, she decided to have a child anyways. The neurosurgeon from Mother Courage would not have supported Jill’s decision.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article was unprofessional and didn’t seem compassionate towards the situation. The doctor told them that there’s no hope and no help and to just take them home and love them which is referring to the child and basically saying there’s nothing that can be done. The doctor also stated and assumed that it ran in the family when it didn’t. Lastly, the doctor said that they should have prevented the pregnancy or aborted it. Jill Viles showed compassion and wanted to genuinely help. Viles even offered to send more info to the family if they were interested. She didn’t give up on the family and leave them hopeless with no explanation just short answers like the first doctor did
The doctor in the Mother Courage article did not fulfill their professional or ethical duties of being an advocate for their patient (s). Instead, the doctor blamed the mother for having a second child with the same disease. Furlong was forced to be her own advocate for her children, as the doctor pushed off her concerns and invalidated them. Doctors and the medical field are supposed to be places of answers -and if not an easy answer- an effort to do so.
Jill Viles was the only source of information or help to the Furlong family. Viles fulfilled the role that the neurologist should have, and provided answers and information on the Emery-Dreifuss diagnosis .
This case was not an instance of an impossible case or diagnosis, rather it was a case of negligence and inappropriate sense of blame from doctors. This article enforces the fact that I will always be an advocate for my patients and listen to any and all of their concerns, as all are valid.
While reading the Mother Courage article I saw one major ethical error made by neurologist at the Cincinnati Children Hospital. I’m no saint but I know that you should never tell a mother that she should have aborted her baby. The neurologist claimed that Mrs. Furlong should have known about her child’s Muscular dystrophy and known not to have any more children which I’m sure thats the worst thing you could tell someone after telling them that their children probably won’t live to see twenty.
Unlike what we saw in Jill Viles story we see Jill actually try to learn and understand the this genetic disease. She went out and tried to find a cure. While Furlong’s neurologist who was quick to diagnose and say there is nothing we can do with little insight.
The doctors that Furlong visited were both unethical in different ways. Her first doctor refused to even hear her out, and when a patient is bringing up issues they would like listened to, the correct path is to rule out why these issues are of no concern, not to just brush them off and say there is no problem at all. This is where there is a similarity between Viles and Furlong, because neither of them took their initials “nos” from doctors. Jill persisted and decided to do research of her own while Furlong decided to see another doctor. Her second doctor was also unethical, in the way that he told Furlong she should have just aborted her child and that he could provide to care to them. She should just wait for them to die. Instead he has taken an oath to try and save lives, and decided to ignore that oath instead of do more research or send Furlong somewhere where she might be able to get the care her family needed if she chose to do so. Viles took the opposite approach and learned as much as she possibly could about the disease and found connections that brought new discoveries. Furlongs doctors just gave up.