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
The major ethical error made in “Mother Courage” was when Pat took her 2 boys to the neurologist and were told there was no hope. The doctor toldPat that she should’ve known and aborted/prevented the second pregnancy. The doctor wasn’t aware of their case, he didn’t know that’s Pat indeed didn’t have that gene. The assumption altered the way the 2 boys were treated medically. In the DIY scientist article, Jill had reached out to many doctors and scientists knowing something was wrong, unlike Pats 2 boys. Jill took it upon herself to research her genetic disorder and not only helped herself, but her father and Percilla. Pat helped others as well allowing there to be a safe space for parents with children like hers. Jill continued to push when she was turned away by doctors all while doing her own research and basically finding out to a t what she had all from text books. She had diagnosed herself without the help of any doctor until she had reached out to an organization in Italy who was preforming a study on patients with Jill’s mutation. Jill didn’t need any explanation for a doctor, she sent her and her families blood to Italy to hopefully receive any indication that she was indeed correct. The unlimate difference between Jills situation and Pats situation is, Jill wasn’t ever told (to our knowledge) that there wasn’t any hope and that she was simply going to just die. She had given herself hope.
After reading the article “A Mother’s Courage” it was hard not to want to do the same thing that Pat did to the doctor after he made quite a major ethical error in telling Pat that she could have not had or aborted her second child. It appeared he was uninformed to what Pat’s medical history was as well.
Jill Viles, on the other hand, in the article “DIY Scientist” researched the medical history and everything else even closely related to her medical condition. She did not wait for a doctor’s help she did the research herself. The doctor in “A Mother’s Courage” seemed to see what the problem could be and leave it at that, whereas Jill Viles wouldn’t give up until she found the answer. This all helped her in becoming more knowledgeable than even some of the doctors. Her drive was praiseworthy.
The articles “A Mother’s Courage” and “DIY Scientist” highlight different approaches to medical challenges. Pat faced an ethical mistake from a doctor, while Jill Viles took charge of her medical research. Pat’s doctor suggested a termination based on incorrect assumptions, impacting her sons’ medical treatment. In contrast, Jill self-diagnosed her genetic disorder, conducted research, and sought help internationally. Jill’s determination and proactive approach differed from Pat’s experience, showing the importance of advocating for oneself in medical situations.
In the Mother Courage article, the neurologist told Mrs. Furlong that there was no hope and no help for her boys. He could have given her contact information for the Muscular Dystrophy Association or told her to look for support groups. He also accused her of knowingly passing the disease onto her boys, stating that other family members must also have the disease. Finally, he told her that she should have aborted the very child that was sitting in her lap at the time. The doctor did not show compassion, and did not seek to further help his patient. He only sought to place blame.
In the DIY Scientist article, Jill became an advocate for herself. The reporter that she initially contacted wondered if she was a nutjob, but she had amassed so much material that he read it out of curiosity. Several doctors dismissed Jill’s medical concerns but she kept moving forward in her research until the doctors listened to her. Both women relied on themselves after receiving minimal help from their doctors.
The main major ethical error the doctor made in “A Mother’s Courage” was when the neurologist told Mrs. Furlong that there was nothing that could be done for her sons. He told her that she should have known and aborted her second pregnancy because she should have known she had the gene. However, he was very wrong in this assumption, she had no way of knowing she had the gene because it was a new mutation that formed in her that none of her ancestors had (like told him). He was so fast to give up on the boys and didn’t even try to find a way to help them, basically just saying “Oh well, sorry, they will die eventually and shouldn’t have been born in the first place” which is just wrong and so unfair to the boys and all the others who have been treated this way. The doctor’s response to the boys affected how they were medically treated in many ways (they weren’t aside from what their mom did for them). In the “DIY Scientist” article in some ways, doctors did the same thing to Jill as they dismissed her, however, Jill took things into her own hands to find out what was wrong with her and did a lot of research to try and figure out a way to help her and others like her. She reached out to several researchers, and while some still dismissed her and her ideas others were more open to doing research with her and her family and were even grateful for what she added to their study. Jill put in the effort to give herself and others hope. If more people were open-minded and fewer people were dismissed (like the boys in “A Mother’s Courage”) science would be better off as more people would be able to add to research and the more information the better.
It was frustrating to read the hoops that Pat had to jump through not only to doctors to take her and her sons’ conditions seriously as well as to find experimental treatment to give them any hope, but also to advocate for Duchenne’s as a whole, and to ensure adequate research being done. This though, unfortunately, doesn’t surprise me. Having had my fair share of dismissive doctors due to a genetic condition of my own, I know first hand how doctors often take the easy way out instead of digging deeper on their own. The first example of this is Pat taking her boys to the doctor as her intuition was telling her something was wrong. They dismissed her and told her they were normal. It’s frustrating how much she had to advocate for her sons just to get diagnosed. Secondly, the doctor told Pat that this was all her fault and that she should not have had the boys knowing that it runs in her family. This is wrong because it turns out she had a spontaneous mutation. But even if she did not and did have it in her family, treating a patient/ their mother like this is completely unacceptable.
Similar to to Pat, Jill, due to neglect from medical professionals was left to research her condition and diagnose herself on her own. It is incredible the lengths that Jill went to to not only research her own condition, but to help others such as her dad and Priscilla. Again, this story illustrates the importance of doing your own research and advocating for yourself. I find it incredibly interesting how Jill and Priscilla have mutations on the same gene, but such different outcomes. I am interested to see prospective research and if they are able to use Priscilla’s mutation to aid in treatment for Jill’s mutation.
The doctors who readily dismissed Furlong, including her husband, certainly made an error when telling her that there was nothing wrong with her sons. However, I believe the gravest ethical error was committed by the neurologist who blamed Furlong for having a second child. This doctor was not only overstepping by putting blame on this poor mother, but he was also blaming inheritance for something that was not inherited. The doctor’s limited knowledge of the disease led him to use genetics as a weapon to hurl at Furlong. On the other hand, Viles used her knowledge of her disease to use genetics as a tool. While many medical professionals who dealt with both Furlong and Viles were easy to dismiss the rare diseases, both women actively fought to understand the genetic basis for them.
After reading the article “Mother Courage” the major ethical error made by the doctor was blindly assuming and stating that there was no hope for the children. The doctor told Pat that she should’ve known that the genetic disease was in their family and could’ve either prevented a second pregnancy or simply aborted the child. The doctor had no knowledge of the medical case, and with that didn’t have the right to make any definitive statements. Ultimately we learned it was a spontaneous mutation and Pat indeed did not have the gene in her family and could not have known. The way the neurologist treated Pat and the boys definitely had a negative impact on their overall medical care. In contrast in regards to the DIY article Jill mainly relied on herself when researching her genetic disorder. She spent hours in the library researching and discovering her diseases and helping both her father and Percilla in the process. She also did have a negative experience with a doctor also who automatically assumed she was wrong but that was because the doctor was under the impression that only the male gender could develop the disease. Jill fought so hard for herself finding information to help her and her family. She emailed and reached out to a group in Italy doing a study and even mailed a sample of her and her family’s blood that she had taken oversees. Years later after the results came back her suspensions were confirmed she did indeed have the disease. The main difference in the two articles is Jill didn’t wait for a doctor, she took matters into her own hands to find the answers she was looking for.
The major ethical error in the Mother Courage article happens when the doctor expressed his own personal beliefs on the mother. He claimed she should have known about the condition because it is passed down in some cases, and therefore should have aborted her sons. Not only is a comment like this wildly inappropriate as a medical professional, but the woman already brought her two sons into the world, making this comment irrelevant.
Jill Viles experienced a much different situation because she had done a substantial amount of research into her genetic past. There was plenty of physical evidence that her condition was inherited. Even with the similarities from her father, she still had to advocate for herself in every situation with doctors and researchers. But, the tangible evidence of heart problems and random deformities made her case made her self-diagnosis much more convincing. If the mother of the first article would have seen any of these signs in herself or other relatives, she might have been more concerned much earlier.
I think one of the major ethical errors of a doctor in Mother Courage was the doctor who attacked Pat for having another child. This is a problem because Doctors should be supportive and care for their patients. Besides Pat had no idea she even had this genetic mutation. The doctor made an assumption that Pat knew she had this problem and still decided to have a child. That assumption was wrong and it led to him throwing insults at his patients who was already suffering unimaginable pain as a mother. A doctors job is to listen to their patients and help them find their next steps in their medical journey. Jill Viles is different than this doctor because she makes assumptions about the diseases she may have but still tries to verify them. She also shows more care, mindfulness, and compassion than this doctor.
In the Mother Courage article, the neurologist made a major ethical error. When Furlong saw the neurologist while her boys were still young, he told her that it was her fault that the boys had Duchenne and that there was no hope for them to live. The doctor told her she should have known about the disease because it is genetic and that she should have aborted her second child. This is just a horrible thing to say to a mother in any case, and beyond that, what the neurologist said about the disease being in the mother’s family wasn’t even true. Furlong’s boys were one of the rare cases where the mutation appears spontaneously. The doctor made a very big claim about this without doing proper research. In contrast, Jill Viles did all of her research. After learning about her disease, instead of leaving it at the diagnosis, she continued to learn more about her condition and eventually found out that she had a second disease. This enabled Jill to have a better understanding of how to help herself and others, like her father, with the disease. She never gave up hope like Furlong’s doctor did, and that made all the difference.
After reading both articles I feel as though both of the doctors the patients saw first, knew what was wrong or maybe they thought they knew what was wrong and because of the fact the diagnosis given to the patients was not something that could be readily cured in the medical world at the time they dismissed the patient and there families. I feel as though the first doctor in mother courage was extremely wrong to tell the mother of the patients she should have known what was going to happen, almost as though the mother could “see the future”, no one thinks there child is going to die so soon after being born, how would the mother be expected to know this. The fact the doctor had the audacity to tell the mother she should have aborted her child alone is a major ethical error, this is something no one should say let alone a trained professional who is supposed to help the best they can. The women in both articles where strong and resilient, they took it upon themselves to do what they could to get the help that was needed, they put in a lot of effort and time and never stopped, it was really beautiful to read the changes they helped create in research and getting help to patients in need, this being the main difference between the doctor is Jill Viles did not stop she did the research she did not give up and automatically just assume there was nothing that could be done because she was living through it she felt what it was like for a patient and the doctor could not step into her shoes to view it from her side of things. The resilience in both the women in both articles amounted to more than anything that doctor could have done by just assuming nothing could be done and the boys were going to die.
In the Mother Courage article, the doctor that Pat consulted with about her sons made multiple mistakes. First, he made the ethical error of claiming that she was irresponsible for having a second child, and that she should’ve had it aborted. Every individual has their own opinion on abortion, and the doctor completely disregarded Pat’s personal beliefs. He also did not attempt to improve the health of his patient as he didn’t reach out to other health professionals or do any further research. Another weakness of the doctor’s that was apparent from the article was his lack of curiosity. Funny enough, curiosity was Jill Viles’ strength. She sought to find the answers when medical professionals told her no, and she did. I believe the doctor from the Mother Courage article lacked insight because Pats childrens’ case was spontaneous. There seemed to be significantly less evidence presented by Pat than the notes/research provided by Jill Viles.
The doctor in the Mother Courage article made the ethical error of assuming that the disease ran in Furlong’s family even though Furlong knew and told him that it was not in her family. The doctor shamed her for it and claimed that she could’ve prevented it by aborting her second child. The disease showing up in her boys turned out to be spontaneous mutations that occurred during DNA replication but the doctor decided to make a claim about the cause without any reasoning or evidence. On the other hand, Jill Viles spent hours doing extensive research in a college library to pinpoint her muscle disease because the doctors she went to lacked the knowledge of what she was looking for. Doing this research helped her learn that this disease always indicates problems with the heart. Because of this knowledge, she was able to save her father. The doctors she went to didn’t have the level of commitment or care that she did so Jill had to take matters into her own hands. Medical professionals know what they’re signing up for me when pursued their job and people like Jill shouldn’t have to go through these lengths to help those around her.
The major ethical dilemma that occurs in the Mother Courage article occurs when the neurologist exhibited severely inappropriate and unprofessional behavior with the mother, Furlong. He reprimands Furlong for “not knowing” about the Duchenne disease, and on another extreme, not aborting her second child. One cannot simply assume that another should have the same knowledge base that they do – an individual with years of schooling and training to become a medical professional. Let alone enough knowledge of genetic disorder to diagnose one’s own children with a debilitating condition.
Contrastingly enough, Jill Viles had the capacity to research her condition, spending hours with literature and research to pinpoint the muscular disease she had, all due to the fact that her doctor’s were unaware and uneducated on her condition resulting in a refusal to help her. Taking matters into her own hands, she sought out the answers that medical professionals did not give her. The biggest difference between the two articles is that in “Mother Courage”, the doctor was blinded by a terminal diagnosis, and with such inappropriate behavior, this initially causing Furlong to struggle with the capacity to be an advocate for herself and her children. Whereas Jill’s determination and proactive approach demonstrated the importance of self-advocacy in the face of adversity, even when such is a medical professional.
In the “Mother Courage” article, the major ethical error made by Dr. French Anderson involved performing a gene therapy procedure on a child with ADA deficiency without fully disclosing the risks and uncertainties to the family. Anderson’s promise to cure the child within eighteen months was highly speculative and not supported by concrete evidence, creating an ethical issue regarding informed consent and setting unrealistic expectations.
The difference in insight between Dr. Anderson and Jill Viles, as depicted in the article, lies in their approaches to communication and ethical considerations. Dr. Anderson’s actions were characterized by grandiose claims and a lack of transparency, which compromised the trust and informed decision-making process. In contrast, Jill Viles, who also worked in the realm of genetic research, demonstrated a more cautious and patient-centric approach. Her focus was on managing expectations and providing realistic assessments of the progress and potential of treatments. This difference highlights the importance of balancing scientific ambition with ethical responsibility and clear, honest communication with patients and their families.
In the Mother Courage article the major ethical dilemma I seen was when the doctor in the article told the mouth Furlong that her son’s had no hope. As a doctor I don’t believe it was right for him to say such a thing. If the doctor felt he was unable to help Furlong’s sons he could’ve referred her to someone else or provided her guidance for what to do next.
The difference between Jill Viles and the doctor in the Mother Courage article is Jill Files had the determination and the will to study for a long time in order to find answers about herself. The doctor in the Mother Courage article did not want to bother taking the time to research and help Furlong find the answers she was looking for for her son’s. It is amazing to me how some people can have so much determination in their life to find the answers to what there looking for while others won’t even take the time to try.
One of the major ethical errors that the doctor did in “Mother Courage” was to condemn Pat for having another child. It was also unethical for him to state that “there is no hope, just take them home and love them. They are going to die.” This was a pretty harsh statement, and the doctor failed to do his proper duty. Instead, he could’ve provided reassurance or possible remedies/treatments to ease the course of the disease. In the very interesting article “DIY Scientist”, Jill Viles ultimately diagnoses herself with Emery-Dreifuss. Jill went to pretty extreme measures to reach this diagnosis, and even helped prolong her fathers life and Priscilla Lopes-Schliep’s too. Both disorders mention in the articles are truly devastating, both provide a fantastic story that leaves the reader with a couple of takeaways. The perseverance and drive that was shown by Jill was much different than the doctor that was condemning Pat for having another child. There can be hope in terminal/life-long diseases and the doctor failed to provide this reassurance. Jill, however, inspires through that commitment she made, and the lives she saved along the way. This is how medical professionals should strive to be, as it is their duty to inform, reassure, and treat.
In “Mother Courage”, Mrs. Furlong took her two children to a neurologist after a referral by an orthopedic surgeon due to concern for Duchenne’s based on gait pattern and the physical appearance of the boys’ calves. The neurologist made a major ethical mistake by laying out a dire prognosis and immediately saying: “there is no hope and no help… This is a familial genetic disorder and runs in your family… You should have aborted the second pregnancy and prevented this”. This is extremely inappropriate as a provider as he insulted her, and didn’t even look at her family history. The least he could have done was point her in the right direction for care.
Conversely, In “The DIY Scientist, the Olympian, and the mutated gene”; Jill took it upon herself to research her own symptoms and possible conditions and presented them herself to her doctors since they were not helping her year after year. She was left answerless and the Drs. often scoffed and made jokes. However, when she took her Dad to a cardiologist, she saved actually ended up saving his life as he had a heart issue. She then recognized similar characteristics and patterns of her own disease in an olympic athlete named Priscilla. She tracked her down over time and convinced her to have a genetic study. Turns out, they both share the same mutation and subcategory–despite priscilla’s large muscle volume. Because of this, she saved Priscilla’s life as they found three times more fat in her blood than average. Priscilla and Jill’s father were both treated accordingly due to Jill’s efforts.
If the Neurologist in the first article had that same passion for understanding and treating or caring for others, it would make him a better neurologist. Instead, he assumed and degraded his patient.
In the article, Mother courage, the neurologist that Furlong had gone too made and ethical error. Furlong was blamed and called irresponsible for having her sons with the condition. Saying that she should have aborted the very son that was sitting on her lap. The neurologist assumed that the mutation ran through Furlongs family tree even though he was told that it didn’t. It is inappropriate for a health care professional to make such remarks and it left a negative impact on the family.
It is a different story with Jill Viles as she had taken it upon herself to research her condition. This lead her to look into her family and in doing so helped her father with his heart condition. Even with a diagnosis, Jill continued with her research and it resulted in her finding another rare disease that she has. Both of these women showed resilience, determination, and courage. It is thanks to them that we get to read about their stories and the change that they helped bring into the world.