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 doctors in the Mother Courage article made ethical errors because they dismissed the concerns of the mother as simply the concerns of an over-anxious mother. Although both parents did not have any signs of Cystic Fibrosis, the mother could have been a carrier resulting in a 50% chance that her sons would affected. The doctors failed to recognized this.
On the other hand, Jill Viles showed great insight by looking past the fact that none of her immediate relatives shared her disease. By looking at more distant genetic relations and the cases of other people with similar symptoms to her, she was able to find out that she had a mutation that caused her muscles to disintegrate. She then went the extra mile to connect this to the extreme athleticism of an Olympic sprinter who had the polar opposite “problem” of having muscles that were too big.
Overall, the two stories show the differences in how an open mind to recessive genetic diseases can result in better diagnosis, treatment, and quality of life. Genetic diseases can affect both ordinary people and celebrities, but we often only hear about genetic diseases when famous people are affected.
The neurologist made a significant ethical error when he informed the mother that there was no hope for her children and that they were destined to die. To compound matters, the doctor proceeded to blame the mother for the situation, suggesting that she should have been aware of her own disease and taken steps to prevent this tragic outcome, such as avoiding pregnancy or pursuing an abortion. Subsequently, the mother discovered that her case was among the one-third where the genetic mutation spontaneously appeared.
Jill Viles was determined to find answers, in contrast to the unethical doctor. Even after discovering her two rare genetic mutations, she remained eager to learn more. Despite learning that many individuals with Emery-Dreifuss syndrome do not survive beyond the age of 40, and even after her father passed away due to the disorder’s cardiac issues, Jill kept her spirits high. Unlike the other doctor, she held on to hope and was committed to overcoming her own challenges and helping others, instead of giving up.
The major ethical error made by the doctor in the article was the failure to acknowledge the mother’s research, resulting in a delayed treatment. In the medical field, patient/ family research and insights are sometimes undervalued or ignored. The doctor’s dismissal of the mother’s research and the poor investigation of all possible treatments shows how little ethical responsibility the doctor has. Resisting to consider the mothers findings shows that the doctor is bias and has a closed mindset, resulting in potential harm to the patient. That is the difference between the doctor and the mother in the article. The doctor is undervaluing the mothers research and neglecting to investigate all treatment possibilities. The mother on the other hand is actively researching and seeking help from doctors to become more educated. She is being proactive and has an open mind set, committed to understanding this condition and is advocating for herself.
In the first article, in my opinion the greatest ethical error that the doctor made when confronting Furlong about having a second child was misusing the medical principle of nonmaleficence. What he said to Furlong did far more harm than good. And as a physician, the doctor had the obligation to prevent harm. Not only did he do harm, but he also brought up many other ethical dilemmas in the field of medicine. Such as the controversial prenatal testing and selective termination on the basis of a disability. In my opinion, this doctor had a very intrusive insight to what could be done for patients given a duchenne diagnosis. While this doctor was very uninspiring, I found Jill’s different attitude about her diagnoses very inspiring. I think what Jill accomplished was truly incredible. Being able to be turned down time after time again and still have the grit to research truly on your own shows the grit and determination she had, unlike the doctor from the first article. She truly saved her father from an earlier death, then protected Priscilla from a very painful pancreatitis attack, and gave her awareness of her condition before it combatted more harm. Jill sparked the importance of human connection and community in the medical field. Some physicians with Ivory-tower complexes shoot down the idea of their patients being a crucial source of information because they lack the medical training that they went through, but of Jill’s work, I believe more and more physicians will see patients as a good source of information when they truly open their ears and listen.
The major ethical error made by the doctor in the mother courage article was not having a concern or worry for the mothers children. The doctors would continuously tell the mother that her children were perfectly fine and that there was nothing wrong with them. This led them to not wanting to run tests on the children to see if there was an issue and instead just form an opinion without anything to back it up. It was later found out the children passed away from a disease called muscular dystrophy.
Jill on the other hand was given a very similar hand and set out to look for answers herself because the doctor’s insight told her to not worry. Jill then did very extensive and long research to figure out her disease more and did not just give up when the doctors told her there was nothing that could be done.
After reading the Mother Courage article, it is apparent that a doctor made the major ethical error of shaming and scolding Pat Furlong, a mother to two sons diagnosed with Duchenne, a type of muscular dystrophy. The doctor told Furlong, she should have known better and could have aborted the second pregnancy. This type of behavior towards her and her children, ages 4 and 6, was unacceptable throughout this process.
From the DIY Scientist article, we learn that doctors refused to hear Jill Viles out, a sick teenager, because most doctors believed Emery-Dreifuss only occurred in men at the time. She was not taken seriously as she was a teenager trying to diagnose herself.
These two experiences relate to one another in the sense that many doctors make ethical mistakes aimed at struggling patients. However, the difference in insights of these two doctors is evident. The first doctor diagnosed the boys without any testing, whereas the second doctor was refusing to even run the tests because they did not believe there was a diagnosis to be made for Jill.
There were many ethical issues that were associated with the first article. When Furlong initially took her sons to the doctors and they blew her off and told her that they were fine, that is something that shouldn’t have happened and they should have done some further testing to examine the symptoms Furlong was talking about. The second ethical issue was when they went to the children’s hospital and a neurologist confirmed that her son had Duchenne’s, and the doctors start belittling her saying that Furlong should have known about this sooner and that is was a genetic disorder and there must have been a family history of it; and that having their second son was irresponsible of them and how they should have gotten rid of him as soon as they found out he was a boy. There are so many things wrong with that, and putting the blame on the parents especially since there was no family history of the disease, and it can occur through a mutation. They gave them the facts that it starts in early childhood and then it will progress to them not being able to walk, then they will most likely die by age 20.
In Jill’s case, her, her father, and her brother had excess kinase in their blood but Jill was the only one who was struggling to walk. She went to a mayo clinic and they said that they didn’t know what was wrong with her/ how to help her. She had started doing her own research and seeing pictures of people with Emery-Dreifuss but she didn’t see pictures of women with the disease, so she couldn’t compare them to herself. When she went to a neurologist with her research the doctor told her that she didn’t have that and wouldn’t even look at her research and back then it was said that the disease only occurs in men. But she wrote to the study in Italy directly, where they eventually confirmed that her and her family had the disease.
After reading “Mother Courage” I found that the major ethical error was the doctor telling Furlong that it was wrong for her to have a second child and she should have known that she had a genetic disease. The doctor also quit on the idea of finding out a resolution to this disease even after Furlongs effort to find a cure. This shows the doctors close mindedness and unethical behavior. Another reading we looked at was “Mother Courage”, Jill studies and researches her whole life to find a cure for her disease. Multiple doctors explained that nothing could be done and that there was no cure for her disease. The differences between both articles doctors and Jills mindset is the openness. All doctors that we read about had a closed mind when thinking about a cure and a way to diagnose a disease. Jill keeps an open mind and keeps researching to find a cure diagnosis for her disease and come up with a common diagnosis.
The “Mother Courage” article highlights a significant ethical failing on the part of the doctor: a blatant disregard for the welfare of the mother’s children. Despite the mother’s repeated concerns about her children’s health, the doctors consistently brushed off her worries, insisting that the children were perfectly healthy without conducting any tests or examinations. This neglect for the mother’s concerns and the approach the doctors took resulted in a failure to diagnose the children’s condition, ultimately leading to their tragic demise from muscular dystrophy.
In scontrast, Jill faced a similar situation but responded with determination and initiative. When her doctors attempted to undermine her worries with reassurances, she refused to accept their dismissive attitude. Instead, Jill took it upon herself to embark on an extensive and exhaustive research journey to understand her condition better. Her proactive approach and commitment to finding answers set her apart from the passive response of the doctors in the “Mother Courage” case.
By advocating for her own health and seeking out information independently, Jill demonstrated a commendable level of self-advocacy. In doing so, she not only empowered herself but also challenged the negligence exhibited by the medical professionals in the “Mother Courage” scenario. This comparison underscores the importance of patient-centered care and the critical role that proactive engagement plays in ensuring positive health outcomes.
The “Mother Courage” article has several ethical errors, including the dismissal of a worried mother saying there was something wrong with her children. They ignored the signs she pointed out, stating the children were mentally healthy. Not until after an injury did a doctor finally take her seriously and inform her that her children had Duchenne disease. The errors didn’t stop there, her children’s physician did nothing to help them, saying they were destined to die before 20 and they should make peace with it. While berating her for having children when she carried this disease, even though she didn’t have the slightest clue about it. This physician chose to tear this family down instead of helping them. She had to fight for the attention and treatment that her sons deserved.
In “The DIY Scientist” she faced a different challenge, not that doctors wouldn’t help her but they didn’t know how to. She took it upon herself to learn more about her condition and actively sought out information and resources to understand her options. Rather than relying solely on the expertise of medical professionals, she became an advocate for her health and actively participated in research efforts to find a treatment for her condition.
In both articles, they fought tooth and nail to find help and treatment but took different routes. Furlong used other families in similar situations to fight back against minimal research and find a way to increase their children’s chances. While Jill did her own research and diagnosed not just her condition but also someone else’s.
In “Mother Courage” the main mistake that the doctor made was negligent. He failed to consider the fact that the mother could a be carrier of the defected gene. This would result in half of her sons would likely show signs of the mutation. The mother time and time again was worried about her children because she felt something was off but her concerns were pushed aside by the doctor. When one of the children had an injury only then did the doctor find out the problem. Ultimately the children were found to have Duchenne disease and succumbed to the disease. Even after it was found that the children had this disease the mother was only berated for having the children in the first place even though she did not know she carried the gene for the disease.
In “The DIY Scientist” Jill Viles is an example of someone that payed close attention to detail. Doctors also gave her false reassurance that she was not affected and she was healthy however she did not believe this. She herself was not a doctor however she had found out lots of information about her disease and made connections about it. While doing this she even help out another person. This is what separates her out from the “Mother Courage” article because she took the initiative to figure out what was afflicting her and then applied it to other people as well.
Both of these article link together the idea that doctors can mess up and when you are in that line of work or any line of work you should take your time and consider all of the possibilities. considering all aspects of a disease can lead to new findings and help more people out. Both Viles and Furlong did research into trying to find more information about the disease present.
The “Mother Courage” article showed many ethical errors made by the doctor. Despite the mother expressing repeated concerns about her children and their health, no tests were conducted and the mother’s concerns were dismissed and her kids were mentally healthy. Not until an injury occured did a physician make a diagnosis and he then berated the mother for not preventing the disease, despite her having no history of the disease in their family. The doctor did not offer any supplemental insight, research, or medication, only told her that her children would die by the age of 20. This behavior towards a devasted mother trying to provide for her children was unwarranted and unethical.
Although Jill Viles in “The DIY Scientist” was also dismissed by Doctors, she was determined to keep looking, and was able to to discover the mutuation responsible for the degeneration of her muscles.
Overall, the two articles show the importance for doctors to maintain an open minded approach towards patients and their concerns about genetic diseases, as well as keeping up to date on the research on such.
The “Mother Courage” article had a doctor who made ethical errors in their approach to Furlongs sons case. When checking their son into an orthipidical doctor she then confirmed duchannes diases. The ethical mistakes then happened with the doctor insisting there is nothing to do and the child is going to die and made no move to help or even understand the situation. Even saying it is genitic and they should have known about it yelling at the mother. The doctor was far from profesional or helpful. On the other hand in the “The DIY Scientist, the Olympian, and the Mutated Gen” article Jill Viles also has rare genetic diases. The difference is that Jill fought to fiqure somehting out with her condition instead of just saying she would die. She was calm with the situation and was open to all possibilities that could help. Jill saw the whole situation for what it was and the doctor helping the Mother Courage article barely scrathed the surface and brushed the whole situation off.
The major ethical error was made by the neurologist at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. He asked bias judgement against Furlong’s decision to birth her second child. And her previous concerns were overlooked. She was told there was nothing that could be done. In Jills case she too was dismissed and over looked however she was self determined to find confirmation in her findings.
While reading the first article I believe the most major ethical error a doctor made was when initially speaking to the mother about her son’s diagnosis. He was implying that it was all her fault for not aborting the boys because she should have known they would suffer from Duchenne. Also instead of trying to problem solve or provide information on ways to extend their ways of life as well as the length of time they get to spend on this earth, he simply said to enjoy the time they have and to basically become content with the idea of them dying at a young age.
In regards to the second article, the doctor from the first article showed extreme complacency in his field of work. Sending kids off with a diagnosis and no intent to research or invest in find a cure. While Jill Viles stopped at no end until an answer was provided. Her resilience and dedication allowed her to save so many lifes. Just because, unlike the ignorant and complacent doctor from “Mothers Courage” she would not take no for an answer.
In “Mother Courage,” there were 2 ethical concerns that I noticed during the article. The one that stood out to me the most out of the two was the blatant disregard for the mothers concern about her children’s wellbeing and the doctor just brushing it off, not even checking the children out or running any sort of scans, tests, labs, etc. The other one is that later on when Furlong, the mother, finally did take her children to a children’s hospital to get them evaluated, the doctor there discovered that her sons suffer from Duchenne’s , which is a genetic neuromuscular disorder that affects primarily boys as its an X-linked recessive disorder. The doctor proceeded to lash out at Furlong and how it was morally wrong to have had a second child when the risk of having Duchenne’s was a possibility, basically calling her a terrible mother. The difference in insight is drastic between the doctor who scolder Furlong and Jill Villes, as Villes had a different mindset going into doing research. When the Doctors told her that she was fine and that Emery-Dreifuss only occurs in men, she did not sit down and take that, she did her own research as a teen, not letting someone who wasn’t willing to ACTUALLY help her cause her pain.
After reading “Mother Courage”, I found several ethical errors made by multiple doctors toward Pat Furlong. First, when the boys were babies, Furlong took them to the doctor and he said they both were fine because their engagement and mental functioning were great. The doctor should have also done a more thorough look at the boy’s physical functioning instead of dismissing Pat’s concerns. A lot later down the road when the boys were both diagnosed with Duchenne, Pat went to a neurologist to ask for treatment. The neurologist told her that there was no hope and that they should just go home and love them. Instead of looking for solutions and helping the boys, he just took an easy route. The neurologist then went on to blame Pat for not knowing she had this gene on her X chromosome because Duchenne is familial. Pat’s gene was in fact, a mutation, so the neurologist made an assumption. Then they proceeded to guilt Pat by saying she could have prevented her second son’s death by not having him at all. All of this behavior was unethical and unprofessional. Pat was amazing to not give up and keep trying instead of being discouraged by the doctor’s behavior.
In the second article, “The DIY Scientist,” Jill Viles also had unethical behavior shown toward her by many doctors and professionals. First off, when Jill was a girl and just started to go to multiple doctors for her condition, they all did not have any solutions and just sent her home. These doctors could have taken an extra step and set Jill up with other professionals who would know more about muscular disorders. Later on, Jill had done her own research on her condition and found that she might have emery-dreifuss. She tried to go to a doctor about it but the doctor flat out refused her and her research due to the fact that emery-dreifuss typically only occurs in males. Jill had to send her own DNA through the mail to Italy just to get some answers about her disease. This behavior by these doctors is unacceptable and like in “Mother Courage,” these doctors also made assumptions without looking at the evidence. When Jill found she may have another rare disorder called partial lipodystrophy, doctors denied her once again saying she just had “intern syndrome” and was just a medical student obsessing about diseases. This behavior from these professionals made Jill discouraged and she stopped digging into it.
Both “Mother Courage” and “The DIY Scientist” show how important it is for doctors, professionals, and anyone in healthcare, to treat every patient with an open mind and not assume things. Also, they shouldn’t just depend on past research because there are those rare exceptions like the people in this article.
In the first article, the mother was very concerned about her child and had a gut feeling that something was wrong. She then took him to the doctor. The doctor made a ethical error by not listening to the moms input and completely ignoring what she had to say. In result, the doctor took no steps to find a solution or run any tests to help the child.
In the second article, it was quite different. Jill Viles had a rare genetic disease but was also dismissed by the doctor just like in the first article which is a huge ethical error. But instead of giving up she decided to look into her genetic history and made connections which helped her and someone else in the process.
The meaning of these two articles are for doctors to consider all perspectives and not dismiss something for the sake of time.
The major ethical issue in the “Mother Courage” was the complete disrespect by doctors to the Furlong family. Unless it runs in the family, genetic disorders are incredibly hard to diagnose. They told the family just to love their kids and prepare for the worst. No treatment options were given and the family was practically dismissed. Plus, the way the doctor talked to the parents. Some genetic conditions are just random mutations and can’t be helped. The family wasn’t taken seriously and when they tried to explain their side of the story, they were berated and gaslight to believe they should’ve known better and never have had a second kid. The mom decided to try and make a nonprofit, raise money, take loans, and even tried to forge a signature. She tried to help her sons, but not in the right way.
On the other hand, Jill was determined. After fighting for years and battling constant medical unprofessionalism, she took matters into her own hands. She reached out to people and did constant research on her disease. She knew more than the doctors most of the time and she constantly fought for herself. She proved the unethical doctors wrong and did it with power. She joined a research study and changed the way people understand her disease.
In both situations, though, the doctors are in the wrong. They would rather just take a gander and pass something by. If there is something medically complicated, they’d rather not bother. It’s incredibly frustrating and unfortunately , it results in death.
In Pat Furlong’s case, the doctor failed to fully disclose the severity of Duchenne muscular dystrophy when diagnosing her sons. This deprived Furlong of essential information, impeding her ability to understand and plan for their condition. This violated the principle of informed consent, hindering Furlong’s advocacy efforts and causing delays in accessing appropriate care and support.The difference in insight between the doctor in Pat Furlong’s case and Jill Viles lies in their approaches to communication and transparency. While Furlong’s doctor failed to fully disclose the severity of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, depriving her of crucial information, Jill Viles, in contrast, embraced openness about her condition. Viles, who was diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder, chose to share her journey openly with others, including researchers, journalists, and the public. Her willingness to communicate openly about her experiences with this rare condition not only contributed to greater awareness and understanding of the condition but also facilitated research efforts and fostered support networks for those affected by it.
The ethical errors made by the doctor in the Mother Courage article is that rather than helping go through options regarding her sons’ diagnosis, he told her that he was just simply going to die. The neurologist also emphasized to the mother that she should have known about this disease and tried to place fault on her for not knowing that this was in her gene pool. Another unethical thing was the doctor explaining to the mom that she should have aborted her children as an attempt to make her feel even worse about her sons not being able to make it. In comparison the doctor of Jill Viles went to exetremely lengths to verify that her patient was correct. She contacted other doctors regarding her symptoms and did not simply brush off her thoughts nor ideas. The mother in the mother courage article was repeatedly shut down by doctors before even being given a diagnosis which is probably a hard thing to go through as a mother especially. In Jill’s case, the doctor showed to her client that she was not crazy nor incapable of knowing her research and also took the time to read a 19 page report on her condition that was sent to her. I found it especially important when the doctor discussed how she highly doubted that Jill and the athlete Priscilla Lopes-Schliep had the same mutant gene in common, yet it did not stop her from believing in her patient and taking the time to further investigate.
There were major ethical errors made by the doctor in the Mother Courage article. Some of those ethical errors are that the mother’s concerns regarding her boy’s health were ignored, and no concern was given to the insight of the mother in regard to what the boys were exhibiting. This error caused a misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and a lack of trust in the medical system.
Another ethical error was the doctor insensitive comments made basically blaming the mother for having her children and not knowing that she was a carrier of the illness. To make the matter worse the doctor made the comment in the presence of the child. It was also unethical to tell her that they are going to die and there was basically no hope for the boys.
I attribute the difference in insight between this doctor and that shown by Jill Viles is advocating despite what any medical professional’s “opinion” is. Jill do not just take the answer she was given and that in turn lead to her doing her research and advocating for herself from the beginning. Although medical professionals can make objective assessments, it is still important to listen and evaluate subjective information from patients or family members.