Read the Mother Courage article and the DIY scientist articles. What major ethical error did a doctor make in the first article? What do you attribute the difference in insight between this doctor and Jill Viles? You will get 6 points for answering this question. You will get 1 point if you comment on someone else’s answer (Give their name), but you must first make a comment before you can read and comment. Note that I must approve the first comment, so you won’t see your comments until after I approve them.
Write your answers as a reply in the comments section
A major ethical error made by the doctor in the first article was when he scolded Furlong for not aborting her son or preventing the pregnancy. He told her to take her kids home and watch them die. Jill Viles had some hope. The difference between Jill and this doctor is that Jill did extensive research and was willing to help other people and found a better example of how she could survive because other people did.
Yes, Jill’s work shows the importance of doing the research and getting the facts straight. ( Which Pat’s doctor did not seem to care about).
Yes Carson, I totally agree with you. Not only was that highly unethical. It was very inhumane, distasteful, and uncalled for. I was very much taken aback when I read that. Especially coming from a doctor, and more importantly in the presence four year old Patrick.
A major ethical error for a doctor to tell his patient is that there is no hope, that is the hardest thing a patient want to hear, However, a doctor must not lie to a patient, but must be empathetic towards. He further aggravated the situation, by making nasty comments on a patient who knows nothing about her genetic history or disorder.
2. The different in sight attribute between Jill Viles and Furlong’s first doctor was that Jill had a will to help others by researching. She saw the future in research and was yearning to learn about her condition to draw the as attention of scientist to research upon her discoveries and save people with rare genetic condition, even though she knew she could not be cured, she was willing to put more effort than some medical student would do right from her college days to self diagnose her self, save her father and an olympian athlete. This was a remarkable research to be done by an individual with a quest for cure and explanation.
I agree that the first doctor acted rashly by telling Furlong that there was absolutely no hope for her sons. I was also inspired by how much impact both Jill and Furlong had as individuals, there’s no doubt in my mind that they have impacted hundreds if not thousands of others with their actions. However, I think one of the reasons Jill was so driven for answers is because she knows what it’s like to have muscular dystrophy and I firmly believe that’s why the first doctor was so callous. It was easier for him to act dismissive since he has no firsthand knowledge of how people’s lives can be affected.
I would hope that a doctor would have more empathy. He also should have known that is not unlikely for someone to have muscular dystrophy without having a previous family history. (Or at least known that that he didn’t know that).
Hi Autumn,
I think it’s crazy that a doctor can lack such curiosity. He was so set in his ways and believed so strongly that he was right (surely Pat should have known she was a carrier for the disease, she was in the wrong for reproducing, etc.) that he couldn’t fathom a potential later mutation, let alone try to dig into the cause to find a cure.
Thank goodness for people like Pat and Jill who are curious and motivated to help themselves and in turn, help others.
Hi Ashleigh Iles,
I do not think the doctor lacked curiosity, I believe he was sure and he knew that there is no cure for Furlong’s sons disorder, but did not show empathy to the patient and was adamant that nothing could be done due to lack of funding for research, what I expected the doctor to have done is too help the situation by suggesting counselling for the parent so as to know how to handle the situation or recommending a higher authority in that field of specialization.
Olubunmi Olapade – I agree. Jill Viles upheld some of the vital Principles of Medical Ethics better than the physician did. I think that one of the best things that you yourself can do-and that your physician can do- when receiving a dire diagnosis is to have hope. This doctor tried to take any aspect of hope from Pat Furlong, leaving her to feel as though she was alone in this situation. The doctor could probably learn a lot from Jill Viles.
Emily Butters,
You are right Emily, and I feel people should try and research about their case too. So that they would be aware if a physician is good or not in his field.
(in Reply to Olubunmi)
Actually Pat did know that there was no family history and the doctor insisted that she must be incorrect, which is neither ethically nor scientifically acceptable.
In the first article the doctor made a huge ethical mistake by telling Furlong that she should have known better and aborted her son. If anything he should have used it as a constructive opportunity to help prepare her for her children’s futures. I think the major difference in insight between Jill and the doctor from the first article is that Jill was actively being impacted by muscular dystrophy while the doctor was not. This not only led her to be more concerned and compassionate for others suffering from muscular dystrophy but it drove her to learn as much as possible about the condition as well.
It is true that if your are directly impacted by a condition, you are more motivated to understand it. I have had a number of students who took this class in part because they or someone else in their family had a genetic condition that they did not understand. I had not anticipated that when I started teaching this class (in 2006)
The doctor in the first article overstepped his ethical boundaries by imposing his own beliefs and thoughts on Mrs. Furlong. The doctor has a right to his own opinions, but when presented with a distraught mother who is watching her children’s health deteriorate he should have responded completely differently. He said there was no hope and there was nothing to do, and even blamed the mother for having children in the first place. Had he done a thorough assessment of the family he would have seen there was no indication of past medical cases like this in their family history.
The difference between the doctor and Jill Viles is their approach to handling situations where there is no clear answer or solution. The doctor brushed off the mothers concerns and insulted her on the way. He had no emotional connection to the disease, maybe he thought it would be a lot of work to research and took the easy way out. Jill, on the other hand, saw the situation as an opportunity to get significant research and maybe even a cure. She was unselfish, even though they may not find a cure for her, those around her or those born after may have a better chance than her. I think the doctor in the first article has a lot to learn from Jill, and also owes her an apology.
Kelsey Morgan
I agree. I think MD who speak so unrestrained to patients that don’t have control over their genetic disposition should apologize. No one deserves to be treated as a criminal for having a child with a sex-lined disease.
(Kelsey Morgan)
I like what you said about doing a thorough assessment. Pat Furlong had no way of knowing she would pass that to her children and yet she was blamed by the doctor. He acted completely inappropriate and didn’t take her family history into consideration. I also like what you said about the doctor having no emotional connection to the disease. I think that is very true and a huge difference between the doctor and Jill.
(In reply to Kelsey Morgan)
Yes, he did need to do a family history of Pat’s family. This is true not just so that he would understand that her sons were the first in the family to show the condition, but also to help her understand that her daughters could potentially pass the condition on to their sons (and could be tested to see if this is true).
In the first article, the neurologist talking to Furlong about her children was unethicle when he/she scolded and shamed Furlong for having another baby boy and even when she was pregnant for not aborting the child. First, the doctors job is to access the situation and give the patient the best knowledge and path they can, not to make the patient feel awful about something they didn’t even know they had. The doctor was very out of line and the comment was not necessary, especially since the mutation was in the 1/3 cases that it spontaneously happens. The doctor also gave the definite prognosis that there was no hope. I find that extreme because there was so little research on the disease. The neurologist could have at least given her a suggestion as to who was doing research or any support groups they could join. The difference in insight between this neurologist and Jill are emotional attachment and the drive to search for a cure. Jill was not willing to give up and she also had seen the mutation in her father so she was able to get personal data and from her father. Jill wanted to help herself but was also extremely unselfish and helped others with the disease. Compassion can go a long way when dealing with genetically inherited diseases.
Megan Buckingham- I really like your suggestion for the first neurologist to provide support groups or suggestions on who was conducting research. Even if there was nothing he could do, he still should have made suggestions on how to find support.
(In reply to Megan)
The comment was more than not necessary, it was very inappropriate, since, as you pointed out, it is not unusual for a child to have this condition without previous history.
(In reply to Megan)
The support groups are a good idea. I looked up some and found
https://www.dfsg.org.uk/
Which led to discussion about Raxone, a drug initially used to treat Alzheimer’s which may help treat this muscular dystrophy.
https://musculardystrophynews.com/2019/03/06/idebenone-raxone-shows-promise-as-dmd-therapy/
Olumbunmi, I agree the doctor was harsh when he told Furlong there was no hope. I think on major issue was that patients come to doctors to seek knowledge, information and advice from healthcare providers, it’s unethical for the doctor to tell a patient that their decisions and wrong and shameful. Instead he should have offered advice to Furlong. The doctor definitely did not have a first hand experience with the disease which would be a reason for him to show less empathy but it’s still his job to help the patient as much as possible. Jill had the drive to help herself and others. Good analysis, Megan.
A major ethical error made by the doctor in the first article was firstly attempting to abolish all hope that Pat had. Even with a dire diagnosis such as this, a Physician must put their own opinions aside and aid the patient in any way that they can. Secondly, one of the Principles of Medical Ethics states, “A physician shall support access to medical care for all people”. When the doctor stated to Pat, ““You could have prevented the second pregnancy, or you could have aborted the second pregnancy.’ ”, this does not instill a sense of support towards the patient. The doctor should have handled this situation very differently in my opinion.
The difference between the Doctor and Jill Viles is that Jill utilized her diagnosis as a way to help others, and as an extensive research opportunity. Jill also had a very personal connection with her disease, whereas the doctor from the first article did not. This fact is probably what gave Jill her passionate attitude about discovering as much as she could about her disease. The doctor was not compassionate towards Pat, Jill could probably teach him a few things!
Hey Emily,
It is funny how the doctor should have been the compassionate one considering the career he chose to go into. I completely agree that Jill could teach him a few things about being sympathetic and kind. I also agree that Jill’s personal journey battling her disease contributed to how hard she fought to find a solution for it rather than accepting it for what it was. Their outlooks and reactions to the conditions they were dealing with could not have been more opposite.
(In reply to Emily)
You are right that Jill could teach him things. Like how to look things up.
The doctor should have known enough to ask when the first child was diagnosed, which was not until after the second child was born. So Pat had no way of knowing that she might have a child with the condition.
Hi Emily, I agree with what you said about the Doctor shooting down any hope for her child’s future. If every doctor reacted the same as him, there would be no progress in medical treatment or diagnosing. The role of a medical professional is not only to diagnose but to guide the patient on their options and support their decision. I appreciate you adding the Principle of Medical Ethics statement, after reading it you realize there is no way the doctor did the right thing.
(In response to Emily)
It’s good to have people with first hand knowledge of medicine and medical ethics in the class. And you (as well as the other medical professionals in the class) will have additional opportunities to show your understanding.
In the first article The neurologist speaking to Furlong about her son’s condition had a very cut and dry tone. He talked to her with what he knew at the time for this Duchennes but did so in a manner not offering any support for the patient for their family. Though her sons genetic prognosis was dim the approach the doctor took to tell her and the comment about her mistake in having her children was callus and not supportive of good bedside manner. The difference Jill Viles had in the second article was that though she too had no bright outlook into an answer she did have the drive and perseverance to try and find a solution. She also displayed better bedside manner and understanding into the emotional impact disease can have. Her emphatic nature to finding a solution based on her own history and that with her father was a more inspiring and positive way to fighting something unknown. She could resonate with others while the neurologist in the first article could or would not based on their own prejudices.
(In response to Milica)
The tone was one thing, but his disregard for the facts and insistence that Pat was wrong about her family history.
Both of these articles are great representations of patient advocacy. Unfortunately, in case with Mrs. Furlong, one of her first encounters was with doctors who were unethical in their practice. For a doctor to scold a patient for having a child and to suggest she should have aborted the second pregnancy crosses the line. Doctors are meant to be honest with patients about the state of their condition but they are also meant to seek solutions and provide comfort. Neither of these were displayed in the interaction with Mrs. Furlong.
While reading Jill’s story, it is clear that she had to be a strong advocate for herself as Furlong had to be with her children. A key difference between the doctor in the first article and Jill is the drive to find an answer. Jill was tireless in her pursuit of an answer even in the face of adversity. Unlike the doctor in the first article, she was the one experiencing the mutation. When you or your family member is experiencing an issue you are more likely to seek answers than if it is someone else. Jill’s yearning to help others is another key distinction. While she accepts that there may not be a solution in her lifetime, she continues to research in hopes that someday there will be support for those with the same condition.
Julie,
I love your comment about patient advocacy. As a nursing student, I learn a lot about patient advocacy and the importance of it in healthcare. I also felt that it was unprofessional for the doctor to scold Furlong on having her second child. I also agree that something really important about Jill’s story was her advocating for herself. She took matters into her own hands and fought to find a diagnosis for herself. Awesome response!
(In response to Julie)
I wouldn’t even call the doctor’s response honest, just irresponsible.
The doctor was callous and chastised Mrs. Furlong for her natural right to decide on whether or not to have a second child, if that child was male. Even knowing that the child would develop Duchenne, it still remains her right to keep that child or not. To abort or not based on whether a potential child is predisposed to a disease or not is ultimately up to the parents, especially the mother. That said, she had no idea that her boys would develop Duchenne when she had her 2nd boy, so the doctor’s point was pretty much moot.
In the case of Jill Viles, a woman is driven by the intertwining forces of interest and survival, forced upon her by the case of her own genetic malady. Unlike the doctor, who saw this disease from a distance, and due to this felt comfortable enough to tell a heartbroken mother to coldly get an abortion, Jill Viles was driven by the affliction to absolutely phenomenal ends towards tackling the disease – to the point of breaking novel research into it. Suffering leads to empathy and compassion for suffering. Too much freedom from suffering can lead to an almost subconscious callousness to it. Therein lies the difference.
(Jacob Crouch)
I agree that distance from the condition is the main issue with the physician here. Jill did not have the convenience of being able to walk away from the problem at the end of the work day like the doctor did.
Jacob,
I really like how you mentioned how it was her choice to have another child even if they did have something wrong with them and that the doctor had no right to act the way he did, I completely agree!
Hi Jacob, It is clear you put a lot of thought into writing this post. What I found most interesting is how survival drove Jill to research and advocacy. Maybe before this happened Jill never knew she could accomplish so much, but when humans are faced with a life or death situation for themselves/children they can accomplish so much more.
“Moot” may be the wrong word here. I would use “Inappropriate”.
You are correct about distance being a factor, but another factor is that the doctor seems a little too self-assured. This can lead to some serious errors in judgement and may prevent people from looking things up (as Jill did) or asking other people.
(Some posts were not posted for technical bugs. Here they are)
From Rachel Snabes
The doctor in the first article failed to take into consideration respect for Furlong’s decision. He was insensitive to the possibility of Furlong’s religious views or beliefs coming into play with the result of her pregnancy. She could have been aligned with a belief that prevented her from having abortions or using contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancies. Furthermore, he made no effort to uncover the details of her initial response which highlighted that it was not in the family. If he would have merely asked a few more questions and listened with an intent to discover the “why” to her situation, as opposed to brushing her answers under the rug, he would have been able to uphold a more respectable approach. Being flexible and responsive to patients’ reasoning is expected in the role of a doctor.
The doctor seems to approach the situation without curiosity or desire to uncover answers about Furlong’s situation, regardless of the extent it related to the scope of his practice. As a doctor, he should have known his own limitations and where to seek a second opinion or suggest a referral. Unfortunately, he did not take into account a state of empathy which would have led him to the appropriate approach of being inquisitive about the spontaneous mutation.
Jill Viles seems to approach her own situation with relentless curiosity. I believe part of this approach is the fact that it affected her so personally and that it also was something she observed from within her own family, specifically her father. The doctor in Furlong’s case thought the answer was obvious in looking at assumptions formed from just following a mold of the Duchenne disease being familial without looking at the evidence. Therefore, he failed to follow the concept of evidence-based medicine. The explanations Jill began to uncover as she researched answered questions people had asked her and she had been asking herself since she was a child. When people don’t question the norm, they fall into a lifeless cycle of disappointment and mistreatment.
From Karl Willaims
I have noticed a lot of people have dinged the doctor’s bedside manner as being unethical. I would disagree with that, The doctors’ unethical behavior was the insistence that Pat should have not had children especially the 2nd manchild. The dismissiveness of the doctor towards Pat is quite appalling, and his bedside manner is atrocious.
Jills insight was simply learning as much as she could about what was affecting her body, Pat Furlongs DR just didn’t care, and was cold and unempathetic to her situation. The digging that Jill has done has to lead to being able to connect the dots on her specific mutated genes, and that is huge when looking for a reversal. I have a friend that was diagnosed with ALS and she is similar to Jill and scours and researches everything in her spare time, At this point, she is still fully functional, however, the disease is progressing very slowly at this writing. Because of my friend, I can empathize with both Jill and Pat on their pursuing, funding and more research to help find a cure for their genetics.
A major ethical error that the doctor made in the first article was telling Furlong that it was the wrong decision to have a second child and also not abort the pregnancy. This is ethically incorrect because a doctor needs to be sensitive and aware of their patient’s religion and culture. The doctor was unaware that his statement could have and did offend Furlong. For all the doctor knew, Furlong’s religion or culture could have not allowed to use contraception or abortion as an option. He was not acting with the best intention when he commented on Furlong’s second child and didn’t take into consideration that Furlong was unaware her children would be born with this disease.
I think the major difference in insight between Jill and her doctor was that Jill was actively living with a muscular dystrophy disease. Each and every day Jill was affected by her condition and the doctor was not. I also believe that Jill wanted to genuinely know more about her condition so she could advocate for herself to doctors and they could see she was knowledgable and serious. I believe the doctor is surrounded by disease every day and truly forgets how much these diseases that they see affect peoples lives. As someone who works in health care, I personally have watched doctors and other medical professionals brush people off because they forget how detrimental these diseases are and to them its “just another patient”.
I was very moved by the Mother Courage article and the lengths she went to in order to try and save her sons. It was frustrating to see the doctor she sought out for help, tell her that she should have aborted her second son because she should have known he would inherit Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. It was unethical of the doctor to tell Pat that she should have made that decision and one of the main ideas in medical ethics, beneficence, is to take actions for the best interest of the patient. Instead he gave his personal, inappropriate opinion of how to handle the situation and blamed her for her son’s suffering.
I think the insights of the doctor and Jill Viles differed because Jill was willing to fight for the hope and understanding of what was occurring in her case. In, Jill’s case, she fought to prove to the doctors that she had Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy because she did the research and had hope for a fighting chance. It was personal for her and she didn’t want to stop fighting. The unethical doctor was preoccupied with telling Pat how to be a mother rather than understanding how difficult the situation she was facing actually was. The doctor should have offered support and if he wasn’t able to provide it, then he could have at least pointed her in the right direction. He accepted the fate of the boys rather than fighting for their chance of survival.
Hannah Hegberg
I agree that it was frustrating to see a doctor be so stubborn to a patient and not try to understand what their patient is going through, and it was wrong for him to put all the blame on her for her sons suffering.
In the first article, the neurologist made two very big ethical errors in my opinion. The first was refusing to even attempt to continue research/treatment. While I understand palliative care is in certain situations the best option, this was absolutely not the case here. The second was trying to place blame on the mother. Him assuming that she knew her second son would be at risk, and also pushing his personal view on what does or does not constitute a reason to abort a child is wildly unprofessional.
I think the difference between Jill and this physician simply comes down to motivation. Although you’d like to think that a neurologist (one that works with children at that) would have a little more drive and empathy for the situation. However at the end of the day he gets to go home and continue on with life. For Jill, this was not the case. When a doctor tells someone they “don’t know” or “don’t have a chance” patients like Jill still have to live with the ramifications of that. Jill HAD to have motivation to do research and figure out a solution because it had direct effect on her own wellbeing. Also, through her adversity comes compassion and empathy for people in a similar situation.
A very important issue that is relevant to the Mother Courage article is the nature of spontaneous mutations. Pat Furlong had no family history, but she had two sons with the condition. How could this happen?
While we don’t the exact details, one possible explanation is that someone close to Pat in generation time (her father or mother, for example), had an mutation during the formation of their gametes (egg or sperm). This would not affect them, nor would Pat be affected (because she would get an X chromosome with the non-disease allele from her other parent). However, she passed these disease alleles on to her sons. She may have passed them on two her two daughters as well. They would not have the condition, but could pass it on to any sons they might have. So, they might want to be tested.
The issue of spontaneous mutations comes up in other situations as well. For example someone I knew had a daughter with Marfan’s syndrome which is an autosomal dominant condition. Neither parent had the condition. We learned in pedigree analysis that a characteristic of autosomal dominant conditions is that if a person has it, at least one parent has it. This is an exception to the rule. If one did not understand this, one might think that the father was not the actual biological father. It was likely due to a spontaneous mutation in the egg or sperm of a parent. I will admit that the thought that the father was not her biological parent. crossed my find, luckily I never revealed that thought to anybody who knew the family. I should have known better. Should the doctor have known better?
The doctor in the first article made a major ethical dilemma; he told Pat “there is no hope and no help—just take them home and love them. They’re going to die.” Pat claims the doctor also scalded her for having a second boy after knowing the first had the disorder. He was accusatory, stating she should have known this ran in her family, and she shouldn’t have run the risk: “you could have prevented the second pregnancy, or you could have aborted the second pregnancy.” He said this in front of the child in question. This is accusatory, assuming, unsupportive, hopeless, and proves a blatant disregard for the feelings and misfortune of a mother and her sons.
Jill Viles proved to be quite the opposite of the first doctor for herself, for her father, and for Priscilla. After useless tests and hopeless conversations with doctors, she took it upon herself to research, believing a reason must exist for her family’s symptoms. She turned her own medical research into her career which connected her with leading doctors in the area who were able to affirm her prognoses. She was able to go even further, and connect herself with another individual who appeared to present very differently, who really had more similarities than anyone had bothered to uncover before.
The stark difference in insight between the doctor in the first article and Jill Viles probably stems from many things. First, Jill Viles had a personal stake in her (lack-of-a-)diagnosis, whereas the doctor could send Pat and her sons away, and cross them off of his patient list. Second, and most apparent to me, is Jill’s firm belief in a cause for her family’s problems; though there may be no cure (yet), there has to be a cause. She was innately curious. The doctor in the first article couldn’t be bothered to go that far; he stated that the boys had Duchenne, accused their mother of negligently reproducing, and didn’t think to reason that something else might be going on (the random mutation later discovered). His lack of curiosity could be viewed as negligent.
It is important to note that the first child was not diagnosed with muscular dystrophy until after the second one was born, so there is no way that the mother could have known it was a possibility.
I think a big problem in the medical field has always been, and likely always will be, burn out. A person must work very, very hard to maintain their compassion in fields wrought with sadness and death. That said, these physicians were faced with choices, and perhaps could have chosen better words/actions (rather, inaction). I felt that the doctors in both articles likely had large caseloads, and their compassion may have been stretched thin. I maintain that it is important to be your own best advocate, and so what both Furlong and Jill had to do were within that realm.
In the first article, a major ethical error I see is negligence. The first doctors in the Mother Courage article just sent Furlong and her sons along saying they were perfectly fine. Now, I understand that this is a rare disorder and they do not see many cases and patients can be certain something is wrong with them when it’s not; but it is still the job of the medical professional to look into possible causes or direct the patient to someone who has more knowledge of these types of issues. This is a contrast to the second article n terms of Jill Viles relentless research into genetic disorders and why she is the way she is.
In the first article, the doctor acted unethically and unprofessionally by telling Pat Furlong that she should have aborted her second son because she should have known he would inherit Duchennes. She had no family history of the disease. Instead of being supportive the doctor placed blame on Pat Furlong for the condition of her son. Jill had a different insight on the situation because she was living with a muscular dystrophy disease. She had done research in attempts to find a solution for the disease because it was affecting her daily life. Because she was dealing with a form of muscular dystrophy herself, she had more empathy for Pat Furlong’s situation.
Ethics is a difficult topic to talk about. The doctor had no right to tell a mother that she should have aborted a child. Period. Doctors pledge “to do no harm.” This doesn’t just apply to physical health. When delivering bad news to family members healthcare professionals are there to facilitate the grieving process; not make it worse. Working in healthcare I’ve witnessed the unbelievable level of irresponsibility a patient’s family members can display in their care. It’s incredibly frustrating, but to say something so heartless is inexcusable. Where I think the this doctor and Viles differ is not only in their affect towards others, but their willingness to keep an open mind.
I think the largest ethical error is that the doctor prioritized his own personal opinion over the case itself. In a sense some people may agree for an abortion in such a situation, but that does not mean that it is the only option, and the doctor should’ve also given them the option of life with information about the disease and how to live with it, rather than removing all hope from the situation.
The difference of insight is the fact that Jill had the disease and the doctor did not. Though he knew all about it, she knew how to live wit it, how to overcome it, and how to use it to set an example for others, and to be an encouragement. She knew, through experience, that there is hope after all.
Like other as already mentioned, a major ethical error that the neurologist made in the first article was to yell at the Furlong for not being responsible enough not to have a second child. He is ignoring the facts that her first child always been misdiagnosed even without a father that is a physician. Also, it is familial disease that she carried but it didn’t present itself physically in her family. Genetic testing can take years and expensive especially back in the 1980s when her kids were young. How can the doctor expect that she gets that done and have known of Duchenne. She was also ignored by other doctors and was told nothing is wrong with her sons. It is not his choice or decision to make in regard to what she can or should do with herself and her pregnancy. For him, to mentioned abortion without taking her into accounts, it is unethical. Not only was he unsympathetic, he was also judgmental toward Furlong.
Jill had a lot of hope not just to help herself but also others who suffer from Emery-Dreifuss and lipodystrophy which made a huge attribution to her insight compare to the doctor. She made the efforts to do her own research. The doctor sounded that he already gave up once he gave the diagnosis on those boys. He sounded almost compliance because there isn’t much research or treatment options for Duchenne. New discoveries can be made everyday and for him to be so discouraging, he locks up his own curiosity and accepts the fact that not much can be done at the time. It might be true that nothing can be done for these boys, continuous efforts should be put in so that others that might suffer from Duchenne can be diagnose at an earlier stage and treatments are readily available.
Like other as already mentioned, a major ethical error that the neurologist made in the first article was to yell at Furlong for not being responsible enough not to have a second child. He is ignoring the facts that her first child always been misdiagnosed even with a father that is a physician. Also, it is familial disease that she carried but it didn’t present itself physically in her family. Genetic testing can take years and expensive especially back in the 1980s when her kids were young. How can the doctor expect that she gets that done and have known of Duchenne. She was also ignored by other doctors and was told nothing is wrong with her sons. It is not his choice or decision to make in regard to what she can or should do with herself and her pregnancy. For him, to mentioned abortion without taking her into accounts, it is unethical. Not only was he unsympathetic, he was also judgmental toward Furlong.
Jill had a lot of hope not just to help herself but also others who suffer from Emery-Dreifuss and lipodystrophy which made a huge attribution to her insight compare to the doctor. She made the efforts to do her own research. The doctor sounded that he already gave up once he gave the diagnosis on those boys. He sounded almost compliance because there isn’t much research or treatment options for Duchenne. New discoveries can be made everyday and for him to be so discouraging, he locks up his own curiosity and accepts the fact that not much can be done at the time. It might be true that nothing can be done for these boys, continuous efforts should be put in so that others that might suffer from Duchenne can be diagnose at an earlier stage and treatments are readily available.
The doctor in the article made an enormous ethical mistake, rather than being caring and sympathetic with his patient, he was harsh and even cruel. Furlong, a concerned mother, went to this doctor for help and instead of being compassionate and hopeful, he used harsh words stating that there was nothing to do and that her sons were gonna die. He even scolded her, made her feel at blame, and told her she should have aborted them. This is not a doctor’s job, doctors should give hope, he made a huge ethical mistake. Jill Viles on the other hand, was hopeful and didn’t look at muscular dystrophy as the end. Viles looked at the bright side and did research and was willing to inform people and give them hope.
(Chloe Crockett)I totally agreed. I feel like some doctors can be overly confident and stuck on their own knowledge. It took them so long to get the boys to be diagnosed.
First major ethical error that the doctor did in the first article was that he kept on telling Furlong that she could have prevented second pregnancy or aborted the child even though her second son was in her lap. It is absolutely cruel to tell a mother that and specially when she just came to know of his major illness. He also kept on blaming her for not finding out about her first son’s symptoms and his diagnosis as if she was a doctor or as if she never cared about their symptoms. She took them to every doctor and everybody told her it was nothing. He also told her to watch them die and there was no hope to save them.
Jill Viles doctor had hope and was willing to help unlike the previous doctor. This was also because Jill Viles had an experience with the disease and she knew what to expect and the hardships with it while the previous doctor had no empathy or hope for the boys whatsoever.
In the first article, the ethical error that was made by the doctor was that he was telling his patient that the decision she made in having kids and not aborting them was the wrong choice and that she pretty much had no hope. He acted very passive towards her which is not the bedside manner that patients appreciate. Because he had no first hand experiences in what she was dealing with it made it that much harder to deal with and he didn’t realize the impact his words had on her. What I attribute the difference in insight between Jill and the doctor is that she was determined by her own personal struggles and felt more inclined to help people just like her because she had that emotional connection anyone else would lack if they didn’t go through that in their own life. Their approach to the situation was completely different because Jill took her time to research for a cure and not give up on it, which is something that has inspired so many people while the doctor was just looking for an easy out.
The major ethical error Furlong’s doctor/neurologist made in the first article was to tell Furlong point blank that “there is no hope and no help for…They are going to die.” He even went ahead to blame Furlong for having had a second boy. As though Furlong deliberately put her second son’s life in danger. I understand the doctor knew about the condition and its grim prognosis at the time but that was certainly not the way to convey information or news to a distraught mother who wanted to go all lengths to make sure her sons felt better. I understand that ethically, a doctor should not give false hopes or give information that are not factual but the least the doctor could have done in my opinion, was to do some research and offer some advice to Furlong about the condition. He simply had no empathy.
Unlike Furlong’s first doctor, Jill was driven by selfless determination in her quest to find answers about her condition in hopes to save herself and others (known and unknown) who were affected, or at least help in prolonging their lives even if there wasn’t a cure. She showed how much she cared about making a difference by embarking on an extensive “Do it Yourself” research as well as involving the people and scientific researchers that matter. She was hopeful and believed in scientific research for a more in-depth knowledge on two very rare conditions.
the major ethical error that I found from the Doctor at the beginning of the article was during the diagnosis of Patrick. “There is no hope and no help—just take them home and love them. They’re going to die.” is not a fact but rather and opinion. It is imperative that Medical professionals leave their own personal (and unsympathetic) opinions at the door before entering their place of work. Although Both of her sons did pass away due to the disease this is no way to speak to a patient or mother of a patient.
Sometimes in this class it is easy to overlook the human perspective when looking at Pedigrees and charts of genetic information, but these are real diseases that effect real people and that is not something that should be overlooked.
I found the article to be equally as interesting as it was emotionally challenging to read, but found the perseverance of Furlong to be inspiring . Despite losing both of her sons to this terrible disease, she remained steadfast in her commitment to help other suffering children.