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
At a glance, both articles are in regards to women and their experiences with genetics. However, starting off with the ‘Mother Courage’ article, the mood is much more somber. The major ethical fumble that the neurologist in the article made was the cruel words he spewed at a mother – still trying to cope and process with the situation at and regarding her children. Empathy does not come to all so naturally, but there should be at least a level of social awareness – especially as a doctor, to know what is appropriate to be verbalized; and certainly, scolding the mother (unaware of her carrying any sort of genetic mutation), blamed her for passing it on when ⅓ of carriers develop it randomly. As if making the mother feel guilty for passing it on wasn’t enough already, continued to lambast her further for not aborting her children. Continuing on, the doctor inflicted extra distress on an already despairing mother, making the call that there was nothing else that could be done for the kids, and that they were certainly going to die- without even attempting to help them past a diagnosis. An absolute professional breach lacking in any sort of compassion on the doctor’s behalf.
Next, we have ‘The DIY Scientist’, which has a much more hopeful tone. It follows a woman named Jill, whose doctors “ignored Jill’s efforts to identify her condition” for years, but she pushed onwards and kept investigating on her own, her diligence making up for the doctors’ negligence regarding her health, and eventually, she had gathered enough evidence and done enough research to finally get a formal diagnosis for her genetic mutations. The difference in these two womens’ experiences in the aspect of doctors are that in ‘Mother Courage’, Pat was blamed for knowingly passing the disease on to her sons and written off, whereas the doctors in ‘The DIY Scientist’knew that something was wrong, but could never really pinpoint what it was without Jill’s deep-dive into her family history, and the fact that the doctors’ Pat met dismissed her sons and her without even trying to help them truly, but Jill’s doctors, despite not knowing, were at least willing to help her by sending her to other, more specialized and knowledgeable people.
The doctor in “Mother Courage” blamed the mother for having the 2nd child. The neurologist made her out to be a villain. Jill decided to have a child despite being knowledgeable. Jill had an understanding that it wasn’t guaranteed that her child would inherit the mutation. Jill also had an extreme case of the mutation. Her insight allowed her to calculate the risk her child would bare. The doctor in “Mother Courage” did not share the same level of knowledge in their patients medical history. They were not aware that this was a spontaneous case for the mutation and jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
The major ethical error made by the doctor in “A Mother’s Courage” was his assumption that Duchenne is strictly a familial genetic disorder with no option for spontaneous mutation and therefor blaming the mother for birthing two sons. The doctor was shortsighted in his assumptions, both about the disease and himself knowing better than the mother, while Jill Viles recognized there was more to learn and remained persistent in her pursuit of knowledge and answers, not just for herself but for others as well.
I can’t help but wonder if doctors viewed the mother in “A Mother’s Courage” as just a grieving mom looking for impossible answers or cures and therefor were more likely to dismiss her; as opposed to Jill Viles whose extensive knowledge, connections, and less emotional plight possibly resulted in more respect and a more receptive listening ear from the professional scientific and medical communities.
The major ethical error that a doctor made in the Mother Courage article was how he approached the issue of a second pregnancy and the suggestion of potential prevention or abortion. There was a difference insight between the doctor and Jill Viles. The doctor attributed blame that she should have been aware of the mutation and that she should’ve prevented or terminated the second pregnancy. Jill attributed concern because she didn’t have control over the mutation and worried for her child. The doctor guaranteed the child would be fine but blamed Jill, while Jill was unaware that the mutation couldn’t have been predicted or controlled.
The major ethical error that the doctor in Mother Courage made was where he placed blame. The mother, Pat Furlong, and Jill from DIY Scientist, are both clearly strong-willed fighters, both of whom were rejected by doctors in a sense. The doctor in Mother Courage placed blame on Pat for having a second child, as he assumed that Pat should have known she had a genetic mutation that could be passed down to her kids. He said it was her fault, that she could/should have prevented the second pregnancy, and that there was no hope for the boys. Jill, on the other hand, DID know about her mutation, and still chose to have a child with her partner Jeremy. Luckily, even with a 50% chance of their son inheriting the mutation, he did not, and Jill’s pregnancy was normal. I think Jill was much more open-minded to the research regarding her mutation and was willing to take risks. I don’t think the doctor in Mouther Courage was willing to expand past his current knowledge at the time in order to help, as he did not want to be named responsible for anything that may come up – this is why he placed blame on Pat.
In the Mother Courage article there were many Doctors that tried to hinder Furlongs process, one even goes to the point of blaming her for the childrens genetic mutation. This is crossing a line for a grieving mother that just got news that her sons are not compatible with life. The first few Doctors in Jills case also did not believe her, but the researches over seas seemed very thrilled to work with her. Doctor Greg refers to Jill “I can understand a patient can learn more about their disease,” he says. “But to reach out to someone else, and figure out their problem also. It is a remarkable feat there.” He was very supportive, and in-fact only one of the doctors that would do the genetic testing for the girls.
The major ethical error that was made by the doctor was that he suggested that the mother couldn’t avoided getting pregnant or could’ve aborted it. This is very sensitive especially as Pat didn’t know she had the condition. It displays hostileness to the mother and being insensitive.
Jill displays different behavior as she did a lot of research for her son. She had a research based approach to search for different options for her son.
The major ethical error that the doctor made in the mother courage article is telling her there is no hope for help for her boys and berates her for having a second baby claiming she should have known that this was a genetic disease and then began to share his personal feelings and opinions on how she should have either prevented pregnancy in the first place or had an abortion. The doctor in this article had little evidence of this rare disease and did not seem at all interested in helping be a part of the solution in helping with research and brushed her off.
The difference in insight of the doctor in the mother courage article compared to Jill Viles can be attributed to a lack of curiosity. The doctor in the mother courage article lacked this curiosity which can be detrimental in a field like this where curiosity can lead to new life-changing discoveries, and boost inspiration, drive and motivation that can save people. Jill Viles does not lack intellectual curiosity, which is what drove her determination to research, explore, and investigate her disease and not taking an “I don’t know” as a good enough answer. Jill was not afraid to take chances even if the odds were against her.
The major ethical error in the ‘Mother Courage’ article is the fact that the doctor blamed the mother for having another child. The doctor made it seem like it was her decision to pass along the mutated gene to her son and that she was fully aware that she was carrier of the gene.
The doctor in ‘Mother Courage’ seemed like he did not want to put in more effort than necessary or to go out of his way for his patient. Jill is the complete opposite. She remained persistent in her research into her family history and was willing to go that extra mile if it meant helping not only herself, but others as well.
In the Mother Courage article, I believe the doctor made a few ethical errors. The biggest error was how insensitive and the inappropriate comments about Furlong’s second pregnancy. The doctor stated that she could have prevented the second pregnancy or aborted it, implying that she should have been aware of the familial nature of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and taken action accordingly. This comment was insensitive and placed blame on Furlong for her sons’ condition, disregarding the fact that she did not have prior knowledge of the genetic mutation and that it appeared spontaneously in her case. The doctor’s comment not only lacked empathy but also violated the principles of patient autonomy and respect for the patient’s choices.
The ways the two doctors handled the diseases were much different. To me, it felt like the doctor in the DIY Scientist was a bit more open to what Jill was saying about her disease and her symptoms. However, she did do extensive research to back-up her claims. That does not mean that Furlong did not do that though, it seemed that her doctor was less flexible and would only understand what they wanted to. Another important thing to note is that both of these stories happened during different time periods. That said, the doctor in Mother Courage had a different understanding of the disease than the doctor in the DIY Scientist because the knowledge of the disease increased with time. In the end, it is clear that they are both very motivated women who want their voices to be heard about the terrible disease, muscular dystrophy.
In the Mother Courage article, the major ethical error that the doctor made was that he put blame on Pat for having another child. He abraided her saying that she should have known that the disease was genetic. Not only was it not her fault, as she didn’t know about the condition at the time, but the doctor was also incorrect. She happened to be part of the one-third of cases where the mutation happens randomly. The doctor was very inconsiderate of her situation, and did not even do the research to have correct information. As with the DIY scientist article, Jill knew about her condition, but still decided to have a child, even while knowing the risks. Like Pat, she was also very dedicated to finding information about the disease. She spent years trying to verifying what disease she had, and eventually, she was right. The main difference in insight between the doctors was that in Jill’s case, they weren’t hostile, even though they weren’t of much help.
The major ethical error that the doctor made in the mother courage article was that the doctor put the blame on the mother. The doctor suggested that the mutation was the mother’s fault when he said that she could have avoided getting pregnant or had an abortion, implying that she should’ve known and chosen to do something about the genetic mutation. Jill Viles, however, was different because she did know about her mutation and continued to go and have a child. She was also different because she seemed ready to learn more about the specifics of the mutation. The doctor from the mother courage article was unwilling to change his understanding of the mutation, while Jill Viles seemed to want to research more to better understand the mutation.
After reading the article “Mother Courage”, a major ethical error that the doctor made was the lack of empathy and sensitivity to Pat Furlong’s situation. After Pat seeked help from the Neurologist, she was treated with ignorance and blamed for causing her son’s disease. I thought it was extremely unprofessional that the physician addressed the disease as hopeless and told the mother that she could have prevented the disease by having an abortion. In comparison to Jill Viles story, she also had trouble finding a doctor with answers. She immersed herself in medical literature and began conversation with different doctors out of the country to try and get a definitive answer. The difference in insight between Furlong’s doctor and Jill Viles was very interesting to me. The doctor criticized the mother for not being knowledgeable about her family genetics. Yet, the doctor did not even attempt to get more information about what the mother could do or who she could contact next. In contrast, Jill Viles was very motivated and took matters into her own hands since she wasnt getting a specific diagnosis from her doctors. She continuously did research and provided more insight on her disease than most doctors would offer to her. Overall, Jill was able to become more knowledgeable from medical literature and never lost hope, while the Furlongs doctor did not attempt to become more educated on their disease or potential treatments and instead placed blame on the mother.
The major ethical problem in Mother Courage was when the neurologist said that there is no hope and to just go home. This is unethical because the health care provider is not showing compassion or empathy to a family that just received heartbreaking information. The doctor then proceeds to reprimand her for having a second son and explaining that she should have known about the genetic disease. Then the doctor also exclaims that she should have aborted the child right in front of the child. This is unethical because the doctor is basically blaming the mother for giving her sons this disease and telling her that she should have prevented or terminated a pregnancy. I think the difference between doctors in both the articles is that in Mother Courage, they see a “distraught” mother looking for a cure to save her children with little research in the disease. However, in DIY Scientist, they have someone who is seemingly well educated in the background of their genetic condition and is presenting that information to the doctors as evidence.
The major ethical error shown in “Mother Courage” was that the doctor portrayed attacked the mother for giving birth, stating “You should have known about this,” “This is a familial disease, it’s genetic, you have it in your family”. This was clearly a lack of bedside manner, which is imperative at the position. In Jill’s case, however, the parents were completely unaware of the gene. The doctor in “Mother Courage” probably would have been more respectful to Jill’s family, due to this lack of knowledge.
The major ethical issue in the Mother’s Courage article dealt with the doctor placing blame on the mother for having the second child. The doctor made the assumption that Pat knew her genetic mutation could be passed down to her children. He also told her she could have prevented the pregnancy and offered no insight on how to treat the boys. On the other hand, in DIY Scientists, Jill knew ahead of time about her mutation and still chose to have children. She was knowledgeable about the mutation and she was interested in further research, and wanted to get answers.
The major ethical mistake that was made in “Mother Courage” is the attitude that most of the doctors had while furlong tried to diagnosis her two sons they would put the blame on her for having her second son and not having him aborted or they would tell her that its a genetic mutation that had to have been in there family where 1/3 counts of Duchenne was just random. They were not helpful as when furlong tried to have meetings with the doctors or scientists they would say no because they were scared to meet with the parents of a Duchenne patient.
On the other hand the doctors in the DIY scientist had more curiosity they wanted to know why and so did jill not that furlong didn’t but jill had done extensive research and looked into her family history she still made the decision of having a kid even though they would have a 50% chance to get the gene to have Duchenne overall it was a difference of how they reacted and what they did to improve on how they got results .
Reading the article Mother Courage, the major ethical error I perceived to be made by the doctor was the lack of mindful thinking. Considering patients usually come to specialist to seek help or information, this doctor not only assumed the patient knew about Duchenne but willingly put her child through suffering. Not to mention, the doctor, though very rare, didn’t consider the possibility of the mutation that can occur despite not having a family history of Duchenne.
As for the second article, “The DIY Scientist” it seemed as if the doctor’s, domestically, ignored Jill and didn’t even hear her out on what she believed was affecting her and her family, which fortunately led her to Italian researchers who confirmed her inclination on what she believed to be wrong with her, kickstarting the journey that extended her fathers life, and potentially saving Priscilla, the Olympian who shared the same genetic disorder as Jill.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article made the major ethical mistake of blaming Pat Furlong for her sons’ disease. The doctor failed to do enough research on her family to know that Pat had not seen the disease in any of her family members before. The doctor saying that her second son should have never been born born was extremely unprofessional to say to a mother who had just found out that her kids had an incurable disease.
I attribute the difference in insight between Pat Furlong’s doctor and the insight of Jill Viles to passion and interest in each of their cases. The doctor failed to provide information about possible treatments or to adequately look through the boys’ family history. Jill Viles had more passion in researching and finding a potential cure for her mutation than the doctor because Jill Viles and her family were impacted by the mutation on a personal level. Since Jill had seen how the mutation affects her family every day, she could more easily recognize the mutation in other people, such as Priscilla Lopes-Schliep.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article blamed the mother Pat Furlong for having children despite having muscle dystrophy in her family without recognizing that it could be a spontaneous mutation in her case. He even blamed her for birthing Patrick while he was in her lap. Such behavior on his part was a major ethical error and he showed no empathy.
Jill Viles diagnosed herself with two rare disorders all on her own despite being discouraged and did it all while having no formal training in medicine. The difference in insight between Jill and the doctor from Mother Courage could be attributed to their respective characters. Jill empathy and her curiosity guided her to enrich not just the lives of her family but also the life of Priscilla, who was just a stranger to Jill. On the other hand, the doctor didn’t even try to alleviate Pat’s trauma, leave alone trying to help her find a treatment.
In the Mother Courage article, the major ethical error made by the doctor was that he attacked the mother with accusations that she should have known about the disease she passed on to her two sons and the doctor did not even consider the possibility of the disease spontaneously occurring. The doctor also ignored the fact that Pat shared that her family history did not have signs of the disease. These three actions by the doctor are ethical errors because he has no right judging the patient, he showed no empathy, he was very closed minded, and he ultimately chose not to investigate the information shared by Pat of her family history.
The difference of insight between the doctor from Mother Courage and Jill Viles is headed by the fact that Jill and the scientists in her story had an immense care for what they were researching while the doctor from the Mother Courage had no desire or empathy to help Furlong. Jill Viles did have the neurologist blow her off, but all the other doctors and researchers respected her studies. I believe that when Jill came into contact with people who cared about the diseases she was researching, they respected the work she put in because they recognized it was thorough research. The doctor from Mother Courage was by no means an expert in muscular dystrophy genetic diseases, but his ego revealed itself when he did not consider to refer her to a specialist in that area of research despite the fact that he knew less than Furlong. Jill became a specialist in her area through her thorough research while the doctor who did not specialize in the disease blew off furlong out of laziness and ego. To conclude, Jill’s passion surpassed the doctor’s inexperience which led to progression in the genetic diseases of muscular dystrophy field of medicine.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article made a major ethical mistake when he shamed Pat Furlong for having a second child, and not aborting it when they became aware of its gender. Not only was the doctor incorrect due to not having a good understanding of the family history, even if the parents had knowingly taken that chance, it is not the physician’s place to cast judgement on past decisions that can’t be changed. Jill Viles, on the other hand decided to have a child knowing there was a possibility of passing her mutation to that child. It is possible that Jill felt confident in her chances, as she had knowledge of her and her partner’s family history, or it is possible that she believed her life was full and worth living and therefore would feel the same way about a child who is inflicted. We may never know her exact reasoning but what we can confidently conclude is that her point of view was in stark contrast with the Doctor from the other article.
There were possibly a few ethical errors made by doctors in the mother courage article, but the most severe has to be the doctor that blamed the mother. By reprimanding Furlong for having another kid this doctor seriously overstepped their place. This is an example of hindsight, and is also a good example of the many ways throughout history that nature has proved us that we don’t understand science and health as well as we think we do.
Viles was similarly faced with scientific hubris, which led to repeated misdiagnosing of her condition. It is certainly reasonable, and often wise, to use the lessons of the past to guide our understanding of health disorders now, but Viles shows how we can use curiosity to learn much more, and likely save lives.
The big difference in these two people was the willingness to believe that there may be more to learn about genetic disorders. Viles was able to imagine that more could be learned, and was able to add to the knowledge about these disorders.
One major ethical error involves the doctor’s judgement of the patient regarding her decision on not aborting her child. It’s not the physician’s role to cast judgement on previous decisions made.
The diagnoses made by Jill Viles without medical training demonstrates her persistence and this contrasts from the doctor’s approach to the situation. The knowledge regarding family history provided by Jill wwas able to assist the doctor in making the correct approach.