I was sure there was a House thread (as in the TV show with Hugh Laurie as Dr Greg House), but I couldn’t find it.

Anyway did anyone see tonight’s episode? It seems to have been inspired by Samuel Armas—see wikipedia entry here. If you click through to the Michael Clancy website there is an incredible photo of the hand of a baby—21 weeks old, still inside mother—grasping the hand of a surgeon through a surgical wound.

any thoughts?

Hi Gordon,
I thought it was a very powerful scene in last night’s House when the baby, while still in utero, touched the surgeon’s hand.

At the time I assumed it was more made-for-TV than based on a real incident.

Overall I thought the episode was very “pro-life” with House’s terminology changing from “the foetus” to “the baby”, after that event.

Plus Cuddy, who had been for “the baby” all the way though, had the last word to some extent, rather than House himself, which is unusual.

Terry

Wow that’s amazing! I just saw the photo here

It was a fascinating episode wasn’t it?

I’m a huge fan of house.  It’s worth it just thinking through the “morals” the show encourages.

Though the show did come down on the “baby” side of things, I’m not convinced it was pro-life all the way.  For example, those in favour of the baby were “emotional” 40 YO women.  Sure - they ended up wining, but I wonder if for the purpose of this episode was to show that House is developing some sort of emotional maturity.  Perhaps the outcome was to put a few questions marks above the issue, rather then come down “Pro Life”.

Day by day the show deals with some interesting issues - euthanasia being just one of it.  And though at times the morality the show is pusing is far from subtle, often it is very subtle - the camera angles used, the emotive content, etc etc.

Worth watching :-)

Mike

<<edited for clarity>>

Mike Doyle - 12 July 2007 05:02 PM

I’m a huge fan of house.  It’s worth it just thinking through the “morals” the show encourages.

I enjoy watching “House” too - when I get to watch it.

But I don’t think there are any “good morals” in this show. (Mike’s use of the word “encourages” implies to me “good”.) The show is mere entertainment and it plays on the shock factor with its viewers. It is at times funny because the main character (Dr House) says and does things that no ordinary person would normally do (but sometimes wish we could). And so it is entertaining.

It does not usually highlight good morals. I thought the show in general highlighted society’s poor morals.

Hi Heather

I didn’t mean to imply “good morals” - just that the show does have morals.  I used “encourage” in the sense that the show (like most media) is attempting to influence our thinking, and “encourage” us to think in a certain way.

I think the morals the show is promoting are very very bad.

The show very much does deal with moral issues.  Life, death, euthanasia, abortion, love, hate, emotions, sacrifice, redemption, duty of care, utilitarianism, rules, the establishment etc.  These are just some of the complex moral issues the show continually explores.

Often the show explores these issues by contrasting different characters against each other.  Each character brings a certain angle to the problem, as they wrestle with what is the “right” thing to do in the given situation.

Though the show doesn’t preach at you, it does have a strong moral message it is sharing.  I believe generally the morals the show is promoting are wrong.

Part of the beauty of the show is how it promotes these morals.  It doesn’t preach, and it has mastered the art of subtlty.  It’s a classic study of how media can influence you.  Very often it uses all sorts of subtle means to influence your thinking.

Of course all media attempts to persuade us of certain things - some deliberately, some not.  I think HOUSE is quite deliberate. I’s worth being aware of, recognising it when it is happening, and thinking about how it happens.

Mike