ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
Scott Hollifield
Production number #457211
PLOT ONE: THE LITTLE ONES
Shep and his partner Raoul are called out to the projects by the cops,
who've found an apartment with no less than twenty-two shivering, hungry
children, with no adults at home. Cook County gets the majority of the
kids, who spend the day blinking under the gaze of the first doctors
most of them have ever seen. They're all malnourished, and at least one
of them, who has cerebral palsy, shows signs of abuse. Susan stays
late, and pages Peter Benton for a surgical consult on one of them, who
appears to have a hernia; after Peter examines the toddler brusquely,
Jeanie pulls him aside and accuses him of harboring a personal chip
against her, or at the least, being a non-compassionate care-giver. The
childrens' crack-dealing parent(s) stay absent, but eventually their
grandmother shows up, who had custody of them recently but reluctantly
gave them back because "a mother should be with her children". Most of
the children get shuffled off to a shelter via a social worker, but a
few of the sicker ones stay behind, including Michael, the hernia
patient. Adopting a warmer manner, Peter checks up on little Michael,
explaining what a hernia is, and when Michael asks him to stay for a
little while, Peter consents.
PLOT TWO: THE SHOW MUST GO ON
The patient-candidate for Benton's "clamp-and-run", Helen Rubidue, isn't
improving, and, vying for Dr. Vucelich's approval, Benton and Carter
parry over her treatment. Vucelich gives the nod to the treatment plan
devised by Carter, who worries that if they send her away, she's only
going to come back again. Helen's husband "Ruby" trusts Carter
implicitly, and at one point, confesses that he's not ready to "let her
go yet". Despite Carter's best efforts, and the encouragement of
"Ruby", Helen continues to slip. At the end of the day, Carter glumly
visits Vucelich, who offers small comfort by telling him that Helen is a
dying woman; "nothing you did today changed that." Carter is woken up
in the middle of the night that night by a call from "Ruby", to whom he
gave his beeper number; sitting up in his bed, Carter patiently listens
as he's updated on Helen's condition.
PLOT THREE: BLUE JEANIE
Jeanie's personal strategy for the day is "defense": After snapping at
Peter for what she perceives is personal hostility, she receives her
student evaluation, which characterizes her as pleasant to work with but
lacking in the all-too-necessary assertiveness department. She is quick
to assume that the review was written by a vindictive Peter, but her
program coordinator informs her that residents don't do evaluations --
it was written by Carol Hathaway. Jeanie then confronts Carol, who,
after a brief back-and-forth snipe about the relative qualifications of
nurses and P.A.'s, stands by her evaluation. "Stop looking for
validation," Carol tells her, "and start doing the job." Finally, at
the end of her day-plus shift, Jeanie goes to a diner to meet her
estranged husband Al, who's been trying to get with her all day. Al, in
no uncertain terms, wants to "give it another try," even proposing to
have children with her. "No more playing around," says Al, "no more
lies." At this, Jeanie begins to lose composure, offers a quick
refusal, and excuses herself.
PLOT FOUR: SEE YOU IN COURT
Mark is surprised by a visit from a process server at work; it seems
Jenn is suing him for divorce. The news travels quickly around the
E.R. Mark says at one point that he was hoping he and Jenn could work
out their differences "amicably", but no such luck. Susan invites him
over to her apartment for an evening of pizza and changing diapers. He
declines, but shows up later anyway, beer and pizza in hand.
PLOT FIVE: TACTLESS IN CHICAGO
While holding forth his opinions on the sad case of the malnourished
project kids (see PLOT ONE), Shep manages to offend both Benton and
Malik with a derogatory reference to "these people", although no
specific racial references are made. Later in the cafeteria, Shep
tried, in his uniquely awkward manner, to apologize to Malik, who
replies, with zero sincerity, "What do you want me to say, that you
ain't a bigot? Okay, 'you ain't a bigot.'" Shep hotly affirms his
tolerance of other races by pointing out his longtime partnership with
Raoul, and his solitary Caucasian presence at the YMCA. "I'm not a
racist, am I?" he asks of an embarrassed Carol.
MISCELLANEOUS THREADS:
Loretta the prostitute visits the E.R. yet again, but this time it's not
for her, it's for one of her two kids, who has strep throat. By all
counts, Loretta seems to be doing okay. She says she still has the
office job Lydia helped her obtain, and also that her family has moved
into a new house. When asked of her current condition by Mark, Loretta
idly mentions that she's been bleeding a bit since her last visit, and
unfortunately, tests show that she's got cervical cancer. This isn't
discovered until Loretta and her children are gone, however; even sadder
is Mark and Lydia's discovery that the phone number and address she gave
are both bogus.
Benton owns up to Vucelich that his clamp-and-run wasn't a success on
Helen Rubidue (see PLOT TWO), but Vucelich declares that Benton's work
was "letter perfect" -- and then surprises Benton by offering him a slot
as research assistant on Vucelich's team. For this prestige, Benton is
the happy recipient of an office, and a parking space *away* from the
residents' parking area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This episode begins the new year, and the setup for next month's
February sweeps, with a couple of intriguing twists.
The main story about the abandoned cadre of kids was a real
heart-wrencher, and managed to involve virtually every main member of
the cast in some significant way, from Benton's change of heart to Susan
staying late to Shep's gaffe to Doug's usual pediatrics mastery to
Jeanie faced down by a little girl who, previously mute, asks Jeanie to
be her mommy. As the county hospital, CCH does seem to get an
above-typical volume of cases from the poor and neglected, and it's
something that provides the show with an edge generally lacking in the
freshly-scrubbed Chicago Hope. The most interesting thing, to me, about
this story is not the surprise of seeing Peter Benton act
compassionately toward little children, but that seeing him do so was
*not* a surprise, not anymore really. The writers (and Eriq La Salle)
have succeeded in prying his shell open just enough so that moments like
these are special and yet seem to flow from natural progression.
The Carter story wasn't a whole lot more than the usual
Carter-gets-attached-to-an-(elderly)-patient business, but Red Buttons
had a couple of nice moments as the friendly but heartbroken "Ruby".
There were a couple of signifiers in this episode that Carter is
becoming more of a serious physician: not only the end scene with him on
the phone with Red Buttons in the middle of the night, but also his
increasing surliness (as one of the nurses took, in a particularly
Benton-like bit). It was also a little refreshing for Carter to win out
over Benton -- and be wrong (sort of).
I think, even though I've never held great love for the
character before, it was the story of Jeanie that interested me the most
this week, though. She is finally exploring some space on the show that
doesn't directly involve Peter Benton; and, as hinted by her perplexing
behavior during the affair, Jeanie is slowly being revealed as yet
another flawed human being with personal problems of her own.
Particularly telling was her conversation with Al at the diner. The
reason for their separation has yet to actually be named, although Al,
in his pleading, alludes to adultery, neglect of home, overdedication to
work and obstinance re: potential children, all without drawing a
breath. In a lesser show, this would be more or less a sinned husband
begging his wife to take him back, but Jeanie has secrets of her own:
the stain of her deception in having an affair with Peter can't allow
her to take Al back, even if she wanted to. I have a hunch that that's
what's primarily pushing her away, that while Al seeming willing to
repent, she can't just yet, and maybe doesn't want to.
In the curious story of Shep and his big mouth, "ER" plays the
race card for exactly the third time in thirty-six episodes, by my
count, and the result is a little odd. When I'd heard that Shep was
going to let a racist comment slip (thanks a lot, you guys who post
those things in subject headers -- I'd really rather have waited until I
saw the show), it concerned me because as bull-headed as Shep is, I
never saw anything in his character that pointed to prejudice; in fact,
I was using the Raoul defense as a counter-example before Shep was.
However, the way it happened made me relieved. It was just Shep
speaking out of turn as he often does. He's not really a racist, but he
does have a chronic tendancy to talk before thinking, and what he did in
this episode was a direct relation to his crass reference to suicide in
"The Secret Sharer" a few weeks ago.
So it's divorce court for Mark and Jenn. Contrary to the hopes
I expressed two weeks ago, I guess maybe we will see a custody fight for
Rachel after all. I almost feeling like the writers are teasing us at
this point by having Susan invite Mark over for pizza. I'm not adverse
to a Mark/Susan relationship -- neccessarily -- but if the next new
episode opens with a scene of Mark and Susan in bed, a la Peter and
Jeanie, I'm going to be complaining. (Not that I think that will
happen.)
A sad installment (ending) to the story of Loretta the
prostitute this week. In past appearances, her occupation has been
treated lightly, sometimes used as the springboard for literal
one-liners, but this turn puts a pall on her situation: we the audience
get to meet her kids and discover she has cervical cancer in the same
episode. I'm curious now to see if future episodes do anything with
her.
Some assorted comments:
-Rolando the desk clerk puts in a rare appearance at the
beginning of this episode, only to be invisible throughout the
rest of the show. Seeing him again makes me pine a little more
for Timmy (played by Glenn Plummer), but I guess the producers
are stuck on Randi as a permanent-for-now fixture in the lobby.
Speaking of which, when was the last time anyone saw Jerry??
-Cute bit near the beginning with an insominac Mark flipping
channels and pausing to watch "Marcus Welby M.D.".
-"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
-Seven weeks ago, I lamented that nothing has happened lately to
bring a smile to Peter Benton's face, but this week it did: the
acquisition of a juicy research position under Dr. Vucelich.
Okay, so it's not Christmas dinner with Walt and Jackie, but I
guess it'll do for now.
-An interesting if brief reference to Carter's past as a young
performer (specifically in "Pippin" and "The Fantasticks").
It's moments like these that make me realize how little we
really know about his pre-ER days.
-No Harper this week? Or Weaver either. Here's hoping that at
least the latter returns soon.
-In case you live in Cabrini Green maybe and haven't heard,
"Love's Labor Lost", the acclaimed episode from last season,
will be repeated for the very first time next week. This
special episode, which pretty much everyone agrees is
terrific, is a must-see, particularly if you missed it the
first time around.
-For the record, my spelling of the name "Rubidue" is very
likely wrong (and my summary may be a tad rough in other
places, like quotes), due to the fact that I failed to record
this episode on tape. Good thing I took notes while it was on,
no? It seems while I watching "ER", my VCR had gotten bored
with it and decided to record an hour of some evangelist
dressed like Mark Twain. Feel free to send the usual
corrections my way.
-Line of the week:
Carol (watching an irate Benton leave the lobby):
"What was all that about?"
Randi: "Dr. Personality? Who knows?"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
erbin
that not only is Benton an efficient doctor but he also cares for his
patients. He may not be the kind of doctor that showers the patient with
attention but he finds a way to shows he care and is doing his job.
I'm glad that he got into the surgery research team even if I have no
idea what the heck he's gotten himself into. But because all through out
the season, he's been yearning to be a top surgeon, I guess with him
being on that team, he's on his way. But does this mean, less time for
him hanging out in the ER? Hope not! I really like this Benton
character.
Sean Vanderfluit
: E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
: Production number #457211
Wow. Were you fast this week. I'm checking things out on line during
commercial breaks, and 40 minutes into the show on the west coast thsi is
already on the newsgroup!
Cheers
Sean
James Meek
MACH...@ARTSU1.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Allan Chaput) wrote:
>In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
>
>>-"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
>> partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
>> think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
>
>Actually, I thought Shep's sort-of insensitive comments about
>homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
>were a precurser to "the incident." I also think the bigotry came out
>of left field, and I'm really disappointed because I liked Shep, and I
>think the writers are going to make this more than a "slip."
>
I really think Shep's comments about homosexuality reflect more of a
comfort with and acceptance of homosexuality, and a recognition of the
popular stereotypes associated with gay men, than a reflection of any
prejudice. ("Clueless" took a similar tack, playing popular gay
stereotypes for laughs.)
Likewise, I believe that by "these people" Shep was referring to the
parents and neighbors of the children, rather than blacks as a racial
category. He's just not quick enough to think that an imprecise
description like "these people" can be radically misinterpreted. Maleek
and Benton, I think, came down too hard on Shep, who may be naive but
doesn't seem bigoted. Less challenge and more tolerance, while objecting
to his turns of phrase, might have avoided "the incident"--but it wouldn't
really have been in character, either.
--
James Meek |"We wake, if we ever wake at all, to mystery,
j...@u.washington.edu | rumors of death, beauty, violence. . . ."
University of WA | --Annie Dillard
*All opinions expressed are mine; the UW only pays me for my time.*
James Meek
(Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>I have trouble understanding Hathaway's criticism, as it seems to me that
>we often see Jeannie being quietly forceful and effective. However, these
>occasions are often not directly related to patient care and are performed
>outside Carol's presence (such as Jeannie's intervention with the gang
>members who brought in the dying priest.)
I think your observation that her strength hasn't been directly related to
patient care is right on the money. I also believe that, whatever she
says, Carol does have a nurse vs. PA role problem, probably because PA's
are new to Cook County Hospital. There's no need for nurses and PA's to
have turf wars, really, and once everyone's familiar with the PA role such
spats disappear, but Jeanie is lucky enough to be the first PA at CCH.
I'm hoping they explore her travails further without lapsing into
unrealistic melodrama--but ER does a good job of that overall.
James Meek
Hollifield) wrote:
>Ceon Ramon (ce...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: It was amusing, too, to see Jeannie being VERY assertive, in fact
>: downright confrontative, with Peter immediately after her talk with Carol.
>
>She was confrontational with Peter even before she received the results
>of her evaluation. I think she was looking to pick a fight with Peter
>because he's the one person she finds it easy to lash out at.
I think this is one thing that Jeanie's going to have to overcome--the
idea that Peter's behind all of her difficulties in the ER. He is an easy
focus for her frustrations, but he certainly doesn't seem to have the
inclination any longer (if he ever did) to interfere with her education
and/or career.
I like that we're seeing the aftermath of their affair, and that there is
an aftermath, rather than the windup and the pitch (which happened over
summer).
Ken Stitzel
:I thought it was out of character (as they built it up earlier in the episode)
:and too trite to be believable. I don't see Benton as ever having a bedside
:manner that begins to approach "caring."
Hey, Benton's behavior has a few precedents. Remember the young man dying
of AIDS whose mother decided against surgery so he could die? At the end of
that episode, Benton came in and held the unconscious man's hand and wept.
Granted, Benton spent most of last night's episode being an SOB and a
climber (did you see the rare smile when he got his own office?). But
every now and then he shows flashes of being a real human being.
--
Ken Stitzel
k...@fc.hp.com
Learning Products Engineer (something of a tech writer with enhanced blame
factor)
Hewlett-Packard Company, Fort Collins, CO
(opinions not necessarily representative of
official HP _ER_ policy ;-)
Nancy Dooley
>From: er...@ix.netcom.com (erbin )
>Subject: Benton Does Care
>Date: 5 Jan 1996 07:48:07 GMT
I thought it was out of character (as they built it up earlier in the episode)
and too trite to be believable. I don't see Benton as ever having a bedside
manner that begins to approach "caring."
They should leave his character in its single-minded, ahead-at-all-costs,
track, as that's how I like to dislike him. ;-)
Nancy Dooley
"Which calls back the past, like the rich pumpkin pie?" J. G. Whittier
Heather L. Garvey
>
>PLOT FIVE: TACTLESS IN CHICAGO
>While holding forth his opinions on the sad case of the malnourished
>project kids (see PLOT ONE), Shep manages to offend both Benton and
>Malik with a derogatory reference to "these people", although no
>specific racial references are made. Later in the cafeteria, Shep
>tried, in his uniquely awkward manner, to apologize to Malik, who
>replies, with zero sincerity, "What do you want me to say, that you
>ain't a bigot? Okay, 'you ain't a bigot.'" Shep hotly affirms his
>tolerance of other races by pointing out his longtime partnership with
>Raoul, and his solitary Caucasian presence at the YMCA. "I'm not a
>racist, am I?" he asks of an embarrassed Carol.
This whole "Racist" thing felt so unrealistic to me. Nothing
in Shep's speech made me think that he was blaming the ENTIRE BLACK
RACE because some crackheads are doing terrible things to their
children. When he was talking about "these people", I felt he was
talking about all the crackheads and other abusive parents he must
see so many times on his runs. Shep sees a much more sordid side of the
world than the ER (which sees some pretty bad things!) - he's probably
a lot more jaded and angry about such abuse (in his own Sheppy way)
than the ER people can possibly profess to be. In fact, the word "black"
never even came up, probably because Shep, *more than anyone*, knows that
all kinds of people are evil and it has nothing to do with skin color.
And they all went so effin' ballistic! You'd think he rode
through the ER in a white hood proclaiming that those blacks raise
their children like animals and should all be neutered to prevent
them from breeding. Jeez! "David Duke" indeed, Malik. Shame on you!
The whole scene just made such little sense, and bashed such a cool guy,
that it made me mad.
Then the ending, where they (the writers) make him have to justify
himself to the cafeteria, which only makes him seem more guilty. As if
he was "guilty" of anything in the first place...
--
Heather Garvey Play: h...@po.cwru.edu
Systems Administrator Work: gar...@cig.mot.com
http://www.cig.mot.com/~garvey
snail://USA/60004/IL/Arlington_Hts./1501_W._Shure_Dr./Rm._2231/Heather_Garvey
Courtney Nguyen
>Is it safe to assume that it's Mark and Susan now?????
I think that its safe to assume that you can never safely assume
anything about ER.
Courtney Nguyen
Teej
>Nancy Dooley (nancy-...@uiowa.edu) wrote:
>:I thought it was out of character (as they built it up earlier in the episode)
>:and too trite to be believable. I don't see Benton as ever having a bedside
>:manner that begins to approach "caring."
>Hey, Benton's behavior has a few precedents. Remember the young man dying
>of AIDS whose mother decided against surgery so he could die? At the end of
>that episode, Benton came in and held the unconscious man's hand and wept.
Beton was crying over the the young man, he was saying good-bye to his
mother. Since he already missed the opportunity to hold her hand
while she died, he took what he could get and made his peace. He was
not being overly compassionate to that man, he was greiving fohis own
loose, not that one...
/s
--
Teej
te...@panix.com
Happy New Year!
Scott Hollifield
: Scott Hollifield (Sco...@cris.com) wrote:
: : E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
: : Production number #457211
: Wow. Were you fast this week. I'm checking things out on line during
: commercial breaks, and 40 minutes into the show on the west coast thsi is
: already on the newsgroup!
Yet another advantage of being in the East. :-)
erbin
Darlene Long-Thompson
Dr. V. reminds me too much of a couple of slimy M.D.s I've had
the misfortune of working with in past - gives me shudders to
think of it still! Missed the first 30 min of this episode
(sob) so I REALLY appreciate your ep outline. Was there really
22 kids abandoned? I only saw the three when they sent them off
to the "shelter" - the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
its the drugs...shades of Chloe
Barb Johnson
Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
>
>E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
>Production number #457211
>PLOT FIVE: TACTLESS IN CHICAGO
>While holding forth his opinions on the sad case of the malnourished
>project kids (see PLOT ONE), Shep manages to offend both Benton and
>Malik with a derogatory reference to "these people", although no
>specific racial references are made. Later in the cafeteria, Shep
>tried, in his uniquely awkward manner, to apologize to Malik, who
>replies, with zero sincerity, "What do you want me to say, that you
>ain't a bigot? Okay, 'you ain't a bigot.'" Shep hotly affirms his
>tolerance of other races by pointing out his longtime partnership with
>Raoul, and his solitary Caucasian presence at the YMCA. "I'm not a
>racist, am I?" he asks of an embarrassed Carol.
> In the curious story of Shep and his big mouth, "ER" plays the
>race card for exactly the third time in thirty-six episodes, by my
>count, and the result is a little odd. When I'd heard that Shep was
>going to let a racist comment slip (thanks a lot, you guys who post
>those things in subject headers -- I'd really rather have waited until I
>saw the show), it concerned me because as bull-headed as Shep is, I
>never saw anything in his character that pointed to prejudice; in fact,
>I was using the Raoul defense as a counter-example before Shep was.
>However, the way it happened made me relieved. It was just Shep
>speaking out of turn as he often does. He's not really a racist, but he
>does have a chronic tendancy to talk before thinking, and what he did in
>this episode was a direct relation to his crass reference to suicide in
>"The Secret Sharer" a few weeks ago.
Malik over reacted. "Those people" could have meant drug dealers/
takers. "Those people" could have been parents who abuse the welfare
system for all it's worth. "Those people" could have meant all
the parents in the world that leave children alone in cold, filthy
apartments with no food, no adult supervision and no concern for
anyone but themselves.
--Barb
Matthew Allan Chaput
Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
>-"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
> partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
> think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
Actually, I thought Shep's sort-of insensitive comments about
homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
were a precurser to "the incident." I also think the bigotry came out
of left field, and I'm really disappointed because I liked Shep, and I
think the writers are going to make this more than a "slip."
>-Seven weeks ago, I lamented that nothing has happened lately to
> bring a smile to Peter Benton's face, but this week it did: the
> acquisition of a juicy research position under Dr. Vucelich.
> Okay, so it's not Christmas dinner with Walt and Jackie, but I
> guess it'll do for now.
Am I the only one who saw this gift as a bribe, offered just when
Benton was about to call Dr. V. on the inadequecy of the Clamp and Run
and his unethical exclusion of a negative case from his research? The
way I see it, Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down, and now it
looks like Carter's the one to do it (especially since his manner
betrayed doubt when he had to convince "Ruby" to sign off on the C & R)
(BTW, TV mavens will recognize this as the oldest cop story in the
book, also used for doctors but less frequently: the young,
inexperienced cop/doc must call the well-respected, experienced cop/doc
on corruption/incompetence. Of course in the real world Carter would
get Morgenstern on his side before going against Vueselage)
Anyway, that's my guess at what's coming
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Allan Chaput
Lisa Pavlov
writes:
>anything about ER.
I really hope that they don't end up in bed too fast...that's not how a
real true blue friend would behave in that circumstance, I believe, and
I think it would be very out of character for Susan. If they are going
to have a relationship, let it develop slowly and out of a real
friendship. Sleeping with each other in the immediate aftermath of his
divorce papers is major league rebounding and could destroy their
chances of having a longer-term relationship. At least, that's what I
think :-)
Lisa
--
******************************************************************
Lisa Pavlov <lhpa...@ix.netcom.com or lis...@aol.com>
Professional Health Planner and Volunteer EMT
ILMSPR Forever and A Day!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Village collecting is part collecting, part crafting,
part designing, and part urban planning!!!
join us at Usenet newsgroup: rec.collecting.villages!
******************************************************************
Peter Meilinger
: The last scene was definitely a touching one. It just shows to prove
: patients. He may not be the kind of doctor that showers the patient with
: attention but he finds a way to shows he care and is doing his job.
: I'm glad that he got into the surgery research team even if I have no
: idea what the heck he's gotten himself into. But because all through out
: him hanging out in the ER? Hope not! I really like this Benton
: character.
I'll agree with you here, Benton is definitely a nicer guy than he lets anyone
in on. As to the surgery team, though, one thing really struck me. When
Benton mentioned that despite the surgery the one patient was slipping the
main guy (have you noticed I'm terrible with names?) says she was never a
good subject and they won't include her in the study. I'm hoping they touch
on this later - only including cases that turn out the way you want is a
BAD THING (tm) in any kind of research.
Pete
Toni Birtwistle
(Heather L. Garvey) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <4cjous$b...@newdelph.cig.mot.com>
> References: <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>
> Posted: 5 Jan 1996 17:59:56 GMT
>
> Org. : Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola
>
> Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> >PLOT FIVE: TACTLESS IN CHICAGO
> >While holding forth his opinions on the sad case of the malnourished
> >project kids (see PLOT ONE), Shep manages to offend both Benton and
> >Malik with a derogatory reference to "these people", although no
> >specific racial references are made. Later in the cafeteria, Shep
> >tried, in his uniquely awkward manner, to apologize to Malik, who
> >replies, with zero sincerity, "What do you want me to say, that you
> >ain't a bigot? Okay, 'you ain't a bigot.'" Shep hotly affirms his
> >tolerance of other races by pointing out his longtime partnership with
> >Raoul, and his solitary Caucasian presence at the YMCA. "I'm not a
> >racist, am I?" he asks of an embarrassed Carol.
>
Heather,
I must agree with you. However, looking back on the whole thing, I realize
that the writers of ER had intended his comment to be racist (or to mean
"those black people") I would have assumed he meant drug abusers/bad
parent-
ing myself.
Toni
Jim Borus
-> Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
->
-> In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,-> >-"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
-> > partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
-> > think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
->
-> Actually, I thought Shep's sort-of insensitive comments about
-> homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
-> were a precurser to "the incident."
Wrong wrong wrong. His glib comment showed just how comfortable he is
with Raoul's sexuality and if Raoul had heard it, he probably would have
laughed and blushed, NOT gotten upset.
Jim
Steve Elliott
--
Save Mystery Science Theater 3000 : Write Comedy Central!
James Meek
>PLOT THREE: BLUE JEANIE
>Jeanie's personal strategy for the day is "defense": After snapping at
>Peter for what she perceives is personal hostility, she receives her
>student evaluation, which characterizes her as pleasant to work with but
>lacking in the all-too-necessary assertiveness department. She is quick
>to assume that the review was written by a vindictive Peter, but her
>program coordinator informs her that residents don't do evaluations --
>it was written by Carol Hathaway. Jeanie then confronts Carol, who,
>after a brief back-and-forth snipe about the relative qualifications of
>nurses and P.A.'s, stands by her evaluation. "Stop looking for
>validation," Carol tells her, "and start doing the job."
This was an extremely interesting story for Jeanie. I do find it somewhat
hard to believe that she wouldn't know who was writing her evaluation, but
I like her automatic assumption that Peter's behind the review--which was
surprisingly accurate. Granted, Jeanie's been assertive in situations
like that with the Latino gang members, and telling off Peter for his
behavior this episode, but she's been very reticent when it comes to
actual patient care. (Until the birth toward the end of this show,
post-review...) I don't envy her position, though, as a new trainee for a
relatively new medical position in a hospital unused to PA's. She really
will have to assert herself--and I suspect she'll be able to do it.
>The writers (and Eriq La Salle)
>have succeeded in prying his shell open just enough so that moments like
>these are special and yet seem to flow from natural progression.
Good point. Benton *has* a heart, buried behind a gleaming wall of
surgical instruments, but it's not as hidden as people seem to think. His
reciting the passage from Luke in this season's Xmas episode was another
example of not-so-hidden depths of character.
>(thanks a lot, you guys who post
>those things in subject headers -- I'd really rather have waited until I
>saw the show)
I'd like to second this; people are unexcusably lax in their choice of
subject headers. Not all of us read the TV Guide and NBC website synopses
ahead of time, and there's a reason for that.
>I'm not adverse
>to a Mark/Susan relationship -- neccessarily -- but if the next new
>episode opens with a scene of Mark and Susan in bed, a la Peter and
>Jeanie, I'm going to be complaining. (Not that I think that will
>happen.)
That would really be pushing it, wouldn't it? Mark's not the kind of
character who gets over something like a divorce and plunges into a new
relationship, even with someone he knows well, without some period of
grief. I don't have strong opinions about a Mark/Susan relationship
either way, but Mark shouldn't end up in a consolation relationship within
the next two episodes.
>I guess the producers
> are stuck on Randi as a permanent-for-now fixture in the lobby.
> Speaking of which, when was the last time anyone saw Jerry??
Randi is my favorite of this season's supporting cast (I love how she
handles Benton, for example), but I don't like seeing her at the expense
of Jerry, either. Actually, the two of them had a fabulous dynamic (and
I'm not speaking of a romantic entanglement), and she could potentially
bring out the authority figure aspect of Jerry. Were he to show up...
> -"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
> partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
> think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
I really like the completely casual, accepting, non-dramatic way that this
was handled. Yes, Shep recites several gay stereotypes in revealing the
information, but they come off as friendly jestings from someone who's
completely gay friendly, rather than malicious or ignorant slanders. It
reminded me of certain days working in the Harborview HIV/AIDS outpatient
clinic, actually. Gayness discussed in an atmosphere presumed accepting
can indulge in humor not often found in the "still-testing-the-waters"
atmosphere of network television, and "ER" captured a bit of the former.
Thanks for another good review, Scott.
Cyndi Smith
MACH...@ARTSU1.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Allan Chaput) wrote:
> In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
> >-Seven weeks ago, I lamented that nothing has happened lately to
> > bring a smile to Peter Benton's face, but this week it did: the
> > acquisition of a juicy research position under Dr. Vucelich.
> > Okay, so it's not Christmas dinner with Walt and Jackie, but I
> > guess it'll do for now.
> Am I the only one who saw this gift as a bribe, offered just when
> Benton was about to call Dr. V. on the inadequecy of the Clamp and Run
> and his unethical exclusion of a negative case from his research? The
> way I see it, a Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down, and now it
> looks like Carter's the one to do it (especially since his manner
> betrayed doubt when he had to convince "Ruby" to sign off on the C & R)
Thank goodness! I thought I was going crazy...
When Dr. V offered the research fellowship to Peter, I immediately said,
"Bribe!" My boyfriend looked confused then realized what I meant and
agreed. When Scott's summary and other subsequent comments failed to
mention that aspect, I thought that maybe I missed something.
I agree the "Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down", but still think
that Peter will be in on it. Carter or Jeannie will talk to him and
eventually he will see what is going on.
--
Cyndi Smith Computer Programmer
Department of Biomathematics M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX
Phone: 713/794-4938 Fax: 713/792-4262
Scott Hollifield
: Actually, I thought Shep's sort-of insensitive comments about
: homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
: were a precurser to "the incident." I also think the bigotry came out
: think the writers are going to make this more than a "slip."
Shep is highly opinionated, but not bigoted. I liked him too (and still
do); he just has a tendency to speak less eloquently than some of us. :)
: Am I the only one who saw this gift as a bribe, offered just when
: Benton was about to call Dr. V. on the inadequecy of the Clamp and Run
: and his unethical exclusion of a negative case from his research? The
: way I see it, Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down, and now it
: looks like Carter's the one to do it (especially since his manner
: betrayed doubt when he had to convince "Ruby" to sign off on the C & R)
Interesting interpretation, and not without some truth perhaps, but I
didn't think Benton was in a position to "call" Vucelich on the
clamp-and-run -- I thought that was Benton's own baby.
Scott Hollifield
: This is a parallel to the earlier conflict Susan had with Casey, when
: both Morgenstern and Mark urged her to be more assertive. This is good
: stuff, as this is a problem women in particular often either have (or are
: perceived to have) in high-powered, high-stress professions.
I was also reminded of Susan's friction with Dr. Kaysen, and meant to
mention it in the review.
: It was amusing, too, to see Jeannie being VERY assertive, in fact
: downright confrontative, with Peter immediately after her talk with Carol.
She was confrontational with Peter even before she received the results
of her evaluation. I think she was looking to pick a fight with Peter
because he's the one person she finds it easy to lash out at.
: >There were a couple of signifiers in this episode that Carter is
: >becoming more of a serious physician: not only the end scene with him on
: >the phone with Red Buttons in the middle of the night, but also his
: >increasing surliness
: Sorry; I don't see surliness as either a good sign of professional
: development or a requisite for being a serious physician. And I happen to
: have a particular dislike for doctors who are rude to nurses.
I didn't say it was GOOD, I meant only that Carter is becoming more
wrapped up in the rigors of his job, and less the relatively happy
maverick from last season.
: Not that I believe for a moment that Shep is what I would call a racist;
: he's just not very bright and frequently offensive because he never stops
: to think that maybe everyone in the world doesn't share his values, or
: perhaps have had different experiences that lead to a more profound
: understanding of the sadness and complexity of life, e.g., his
: joky/contemptuous dismissal of the sincerity of suicide attempts.
Agreed. More telling (and more objectionable) than his "those people"
remark was Shep's feeling that things were "all right" and that nobody
owed anybody anything in today's society. I've heard the same thing from
other people who mistakenly believe that racism has ceased to be an
insidious presence in American life.
: And I thought Malik was way out of line in his hostility, a hostility that
: I felt went beyond Shep's comment. Benton and Malik were very quick to
: jump on him, and I think that it was because they just plain don't like
: him. I've seen this in real life in work situations where one person will
: take what appears to be an irrational dislike to another, and then use
: some action or statement that is quite innocuous as an excuse to express
: pent-up dislike.
You're the second person in a row to propose that Malik simply dislikes
Shep as a person, so maybe you;re on to something. :)
Ceon Ramon
Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
>Matthew Allan Chaput (MACH...@ARTSU1.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>
>: Am I the only one who saw this gift as a bribe, offered just when
>: Benton was about to call Dr. V. on the inadequecy of the Clamp and Run
>: and his unethical exclusion of a negative case from his research? The
>: way I see it, Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down, and now it
>: looks like Carter's the one to do it (especially since his manner
>: betrayed doubt when he had to convince "Ruby" to sign off on the C & R)
>
>Interesting interpretation, and not without some truth perhaps, but I
>didn't think Benton was in a position to "call" Vucelich on the
>clamp-and-run -- I thought that was Benton's own baby.
That's true. I don't think the issue is the procedure itself so much as
the fact that Vucelich intends to omit the case from the results of his
study of the procedure, thereby skewing the success rate.
I don't believe it was a bribe, in any case, although what Vucelich
proposes to do with his research is dishonest and unethical.
--Barbara
-montalvo m.a.
Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
[a good summary]
The plot about the woman with indigestion is missing....
Maria
Matthew B Landry
: I really hope that they don't end up in bed too fast...that's not how a
: real true blue friend would behave in that circumstance, I believe, and
: I think it would be very out of character for Susan. If they are going
They'll make this one slow, I'm sure. Less because it feels
better than because dragging these progressively less subtle hints out
through two seasons hasn't hurt their ratings, and a quickie relationship
that falls apart at the first touch isn't going to keep people watching.
--
Matthew Landry
Well, yeah. Actually I do sometimes speak
for Msen. But not from THIS account.
deb...@teleport.com
>Lisa Pavlov (lhpa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I really hope that they don't end up in bed too fast...that's not how a
>: real true blue friend would behave in that circumstance, I believe, and
>: I think it would be very out of character for Susan. If they are going
>
Well.....I dunno, a handsome friend, "meat" pizza and some cold
beer...heheheh I would probably be in bed really fast!!
Tinita M. Wheaton
>Production number #457211
>
>
>While holding forth his opinions on the sad case of the malnourished
>project kids (see PLOT ONE), Shep manages to offend both Benton and
>Malik with a derogatory reference to "these people", although no
>specific racial references are made. Later in the cafeteria, Shep
>tried, in his uniquely awkward manner, to apologize to Malik, who
>replies, with zero sincerity, "What do you want me to say, that you
>ain't a bigot? Okay, 'you ain't a bigot.'" Shep hotly affirms his
>tolerance of other races by pointing out his longtime partnership with
>Raoul, and his solitary Caucasian presence at the YMCA. "I'm not a
>racist, am I?" he asks of an embarrassed Carol.
>
Upon watching this I found this little interlude rather weird. ER is
usually so subtle about stuff like this (i.e. Vucelich asking Peter to
talk to the black family) that this attempt at "playing a race card"
seemed clumsy and contrived. I knew that Shep was going to be accused by
Benton and Malik of being a racist so I was keeping my eyes open for "the
incident." I suspect that, while the writers did not want to portray
Shep as a cross-burning, sheet-wearing racist, they were attempting to
portray him as a person who probably does have some deep down racist
feelings which manifest itself in unthinking speech. I further suspect
they were attempting to illustrate the finer points of racism by making
it the kind of incident that blacks will recognize as "racist" but whites
won't. The words "you people" or "those people" or even "our kind" in
a particular context can be loaded with all kinds of racial
implications. I think they were trying to make Shep make a "you people"
remark where Benton and Malik would immediately recognize the underlying
(and maybe unknowing) racism. Yet, I think they failed in the execution
of it. His particular remark wasn't a good example of that, Ross Perot's
was much better.
The more interesting part of this whole interlude was the exchange
between him and Benton immediately following his remark. "You're the
surgeon, I'm driving an emergency truck" (or something like that)
followed by Benton saying "You don't know anything about me" (or
something like that). We've already seen Benton deal with another type
of casual racism (the Vucelich incident) and wonder what other types he's
had to shrug off?
Anyhoo, I think they *were* trying to make Shep a little racist, but
didn't execute it very well.
Tinita
livel...@usa.pipeline.com
Summary/Review>, 'Darlene Long-Thompson <s_he...@sentex.net>' wrote:
>the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
>was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
>grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
>its the drugs...shades of Chloe
thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have been
sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is good with
them, and she has proven she can care for them. But their mother has all
the legal rights and grandma has none. That is the same position Susan
will find herself in when Chloe returns for Susie. That money that Chloe
sent is going to be used to prove that she didn't abandon her and Susan, in
watching this grandmother's helpless resignation, knew she will face the
same situation one of these days. It will be little Susie with
malnutrition and head lice being taken away by Children's Services while
Susan stands by unable to intervene. Worse yet, Susan would like to
believe she would never make the mistake of letting Chloe take Susie back
once she (Susan) had custody, but she saw that this woman had done just
that out of love and hope.
M.K.
Meredith Lynn Goldsmith
Al Boulet is going to start stalking/harrassing Jeanie. In the
diner, when she got up to leave, he grabbed her arm and then she sat
down and started talking to him again. A few reasons why this makes
sense:
When he meets Peter in the check-in area a few wierd looks cross
each of their faces. Peter has a "does he know" expression. Maybe Al
does know. He's just a bit too friendly and hearty.
We never really knew why Jeanie left Al in the first place--she
obliquely refers to "lots of things you never even knew about"
This might explain Jeanie's ambivalence/sense of victimization. I
agree with Scott and others that she was too quick to blame Peter
for her poor evaluation. Carol's characterization of her as "timid"
and "passive" may have also picked on an aspect of her personality
that hasn't been too well explored. Jeanie may have been someone who
would tolerate abuse. However, I'd still like to see explained her
courage--moving down to the ER in the first place, and facing down
the gang members a few eps back.
Just my .02,
agree with Scott and others that she was too quick to blame
Meredith Goldsmith
English Department, Columbia University
--"There's nothing grimmer than a tragedy that wears a comic mask."
--Edith Wharton, _The House of Mirth_
Scott Hollifield
: re: the "justifying himself to the cafeteria to make himself seem not
: guilty" I think the very fact that he felt he did have to justify
: himself proves he is guilty. I though originally the "these people"
: comment applied only to the parents of the children until all that other
: stuff started spewing out. I think he does have racist feelings that he
: does not admit to himself. MOM
Speculate all you like, but Shep's attempts at self-justification don't
"prove" anything. Just because someone is over-defensive doesn't make
them also a racist.
--
Brian Spollen
>
>Agreed. More telling (and more objectionable) than his "those people"
>remark was Shep's feeling that things were "all right" and that nobody
>owed anybody anything in today's society. I've heard the same thing from
>other people who mistakenly believe that racism has ceased to be an
>insidious presence in American life.
>
People, in general, project their own experiences onto society at large.
Shep doesn't perceive himself to be a racist, therefore figures it can't
be all that pervasive and that there aren't any more problems to solve in
that arena.
Malik and Benton, on the other hand, have either directly experienced
far more racism, or are at least members of an ethnic group that is
far more attuned to its existence. As a matter of fact, I suspect
that this episode is examining Benton's and Malik's trigger-happy
reaction as it was Shep's ill-considered wording (if not latent racism):
do members of some groups --- black, in this instance --- "read into"
others' words and see racism that isn't there?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Spollen | Internet:b...@sc.harris.com
Harris Electronic Design Automation, Inc. | I express my opinions, not Harris's
Fishers, New York 14453 | "Taste makes Waist"
Library
William Kucharski
deb...@teleport.com (deb...@teleport.com) said the following:
>Well.....I dunno, a handsome friend, "meat" pizza and some cold
>beer...heheheh I would probably be in bed really fast!!
Hello, Domino's? ;-) ;-)
--
| William Kucharski | Opinions expressed herein
| Internet: kuch...@netcom.com | are MINE alone, NOT those of
| Ham: N0OKQ | of NETCOM.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "Dittos from Louisville, CO"
Tinita M. Wheaton
Nancy Dooley <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cil3n$k...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> er...@ix.netcom.com (erbin ) writes:
>>From: er...@ix.netcom.com (erbin )
>>Subject: Benton Does Care
>>Date: 5 Jan 1996 07:48:07 GMT
>
>>The last scene was definitely a touching one. It just shows to prove
>>that not only is Benton an efficient doctor but he also cares for his
>>patients. He may not be the kind of doctor that showers the patient with
>>attention but he finds a way to shows he care and is doing his job.
>>I'm glad that he got into the surgery research team even if I have no
>>idea what the heck he's gotten himself into. But because all through out
>>the season, he's been yearning to be a top surgeon, I guess with him
>>being on that team, he's on his way. But does this mean, less time for
>>him hanging out in the ER? Hope not! I really like this Benton
>>character.
>
>and too trite to be believable. I don't see Benton as ever having a bedside
>manner that begins to approach "caring."
>
It is not out of character. They've shown Benton do that exact same
thing over and over again. First all we'll see is the gruff ass-hole
then in a flash we'll see a bit of human compassion that is quickly
covered up again. There was the episode where the old Russian (?) liquor
store owner shot a kid who was trying to rip him off. Benton was gentle
with him. There was the episode where he invited Carter over for
Thanksgiving dinner. There was the episode where he called all over
Chicago and even drove out in the rain to track down another doctor who
could perform lifesaving surgery on a kid. There was the episode with
the AIDS guy. There was the episode where he reluctantly, yet
heorically, got involved with the woman who was beaten by her husband the
cop. A let's not forget his recommendation of Carter. This little role
reversal on Benton's side is not atypical. We've already seen time and
time again that he is has a heart underneath. He merely doesn't trot it
out all that much.
>They should leave his character in its single-minded, ahead-at-all-costs,
>track, as that's how I like to dislike him. ;-)
>
If they do that they make him a one-dimensional caricature. That would
make him an unbelievable charater. A continued one-note character like
that quickly becomes boring and a liability to enjoying the show. By
showing little glimpses of a softer side they give a him a more rounded
charater and make him believable.
Tinita
S. Pines
James Meek <j...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cjm9k$7ps...@watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
>MACH...@ARTSU1.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Allan Chaput) wrote:
>
>>In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
>> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
>>
>>> partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
>>> think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
>>
>>homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
>>were a precurser to "the incident." I also think the bigotry came out
>>of left field, and I'm really disappointed because I liked Shep, and I
>>think the writers are going to make this more than a "slip."
>>
>comfort with and acceptance of homosexuality, and a recognition of the
>popular stereotypes associated with gay men, than a reflection of any
>prejudice. ("Clueless" took a similar tack, playing popular gay
>stereotypes for laughs.)
>
>Likewise, I believe that by "these people" Shep was referring to the
>parents and neighbors of the children, rather than blacks as a racial
>category. He's just not quick enough to think that an imprecise
>description like "these people" can be radically misinterpreted. Maleek
>and Benton, I think, came down too hard on Shep, who may be naive but
>doesn't seem bigoted. Less challenge and more tolerance, while objecting
>to his turns of phrase, might have avoided "the incident"--but it wouldn't
>really have been in character, either.
One thing I've been thinking about with the comparison of Shep's
comments is Carol's reaction. While Shep rattles off the list of
humorous gay stereotypes, Carol is laughing along with him, but
then finally steps in to explain, "He's gay" -- a move which struck
me as designed to cut off Shep's funny routine before it could
become offensive.
I don't know that I necessarily want to hold up Carol as a paragon
of open-mindedness, but it does seem that she's a lot more reserved
and considered in sharing her opinions, and so I'm inclined to judge
Shep's general social awareness against Carol's range of embarrass-
ment. In the cafeteria, for example, she was clearly mortified;
does anyone remember how she reacted to his first mention of "those
people"?
--S.
--
/\spi...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
/--\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "They are challenging my
/----\ beliefs here--and it's really starting to piss me off."
|| -- A.W., 7/20/89
Ceon Ramon
Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
>E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
>Production number #457211
As usual, the title is spot on: "dead" of winter, when everything is
quiescent, dead and dying and dreary, the time of year when everyone is
tired of the constant cold and discomfort and colorlessness, the time when
you begin to despair that spring will ever come again. Nothing good
happened for anyone in this story except for Peter.
>PLOT THREE: BLUE JEANIE
>Jeanie's personal strategy for the day is "defense": After snapping at
>Peter for what she perceives is personal hostility, she receives her
>student evaluation, which characterizes her as pleasant to work with but
>lacking in the all-too-necessary assertiveness department.
This is a parallel to the earlier conflict Susan had with Casey, when
both Morgenstern and Mark urged her to be more assertive. This is good
stuff, as this is a problem women in particular often either have (or are
perceived to have) in high-powered, high-stress professions.
I have trouble understanding Hathaway's criticism, as it seems to me that
we often see Jeannie being quietly forceful and effective. However, these
occasions are often not directly related to patient care and are performed
outside Carol's presence (such as Jeannie's intervention with the gang
members who brought in the dying priest.)
It was amusing, too, to see Jeannie being VERY assertive, in fact
downright confrontative, with Peter immediately after her talk with Carol.
>There were a couple of signifiers in this episode that Carter is
>becoming more of a serious physician: not only the end scene with him on
>the phone with Red Buttons in the middle of the night, but also his
>increasing surliness
Sorry; I don't see surliness as either a good sign of professional
development or a requisite for being a serious physician. And I happen to
have a particular dislike for doctors who are rude to nurses.
Re: Shep
>I never saw anything in his character that pointed to prejudice; in fact,
>I was using the Raoul defense as a counter-example before Shep was.
"I'm not prejudiced! Some of my best friends are... <fill in the
blank>." Nope; doesn't work for me.
Not that I believe for a moment that Shep is what I would call a racist;
he's just not very bright and frequently offensive because he never stops
to think that maybe everyone in the world doesn't share his values, or
perhaps have had different experiences that lead to a more profound
understanding of the sadness and complexity of life, e.g., his
joky/contemptuous dismissal of the sincerity of suicide attempts.
And I thought Malik was way out of line in his hostility, a hostility that
I felt went beyond Shep's comment. Benton and Malik were very quick to
jump on him, and I think that it was because they just plain don't like
him. I've seen this in real life in work situations where one person will
take what appears to be an irrational dislike to another, and then use
some action or statement that is quite innocuous as an excuse to express
pent-up dislike.
But then maybe I'm projecting, as I have a strong dislike for the
character of Shep myself.
--Barbara
Ceon Ramon
>-montalvo m.a. (ma...@mvuts.mv.att.com) wrote:
>: In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
>: Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>: [a good summary]
>
>: The plot about the woman with indigestion is missing....
>
>was one of the more amusing bits - almost impossible to believe that
>someone could go through an entire pregnancy ignorant of its occurrance.
>Yet I know it happens.
Yes, at least once a year a news service reports such a case, usually
with some cutsey headline like ";Indigestion' is 8-lb bouncing boy!"
I suspect that the morbidly obese (medical description, not disapproving
judgment) are accustomed to experiencing some symptoms that accompany
pregnancy, so they would be attributed to their weight condition. And her
daughter exlcaimed, "But she's been through menopause!" so some of those
symptoms of discomfort might have been wrongly attributed as well. (Or
else the menopausal symptoms were misdiagnosed.)
And on the other hand, some lucky women sail through pregnancy without
ever feeling unwell or having morning sickness.
Did anybody else figure out the diagnosis before
>the payoff? Almost immediately, when I noticed the patient's weight and
>the symptoms, I said outloud: "pregnant."
You were quicker than I was. It wasn't until Mark asked her, "How often
are these pains coming?" that I realized it.
--Barbara
Andy Gural
This file can be obtained from various web sites, why for God's
sake post it here. Sorry about being so lippy in the title line but
sheesh, not only will this gum up the news group for a week but what
happens when even one of the segments fails to be mirrored?
__________
Andy Gural, The Northern Times, Kapuskasing, Ontario.
__________
Anthony Wyrick
>As to the surgery team, though, one thing really struck me. When
>Benton mentioned that despite the surgery the one patient was slipping >the main guy (have you noticed I'm terrible with names?) says she was
>never a good subject and they won't include her in the study. I'm
>hoping they touch on this later - only including cases that turn out
>the way you want is a BAD THING (tm) in any kind of research.
I have to agree with you, Pete. As a patient with an incurable disorder,
I have undergone many investigational treatments. One such treatment was
tainted by the lack of this type of data and therefore the 'great'
results reported were seriously flawed. The side-effects of this
particular treatment that I received was nothing what I anticipated,
mainly because of less that truthful reporting of previous research.
Unfortunately, there *are* unscrupulous researchers out there that
'shade' their results to make their research appear as favorable as
possible. Of course this opinion is based on my limited experience.
I also hope this is explored further and Dr. Vucelich's data collecting
techniques are exposed.
Anthony
Scott Hollifield
: In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
: Scott Hollifield <Sco...@cris.com> wrote:
: [a good summary]
: The plot about the woman with indigestion is missing....
No it's not; I simply chose not to include it. I suppose there's an
argument for inclusion since it featured Benton and Jeanie working
together. Anyone else have opinions on that?
livel...@usa.pipeline.com
Summary/Review>, 'c...@odin.mdacc.tmc.edu (Cyndi Smith)' wrote:
>I agree the "Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down", but still think
>that Peter will be in on it. Carter or Jeannie will talk to him and
>eventually he will see what is going on.
research findings with be published, his procedure accepted, lives saved,
and his ego will grow. No one will question his removal of Mrs. R. from
the study because she was indeed a poor candidate. He may be a cold
hearted egomaniac, but he is also pioneering a procedure that will save
lives. But Drs. Benton and Carter are going to do some soul searching
about how they want to conduct their careers. For the good of science and
people as a whole or for the individual patient? Deep philospohical
question that Benton, hot on the career track, would prefer to ignore (as
long as it isn't HIS mother involved). And Carter, who has the luxury of
not being as driven as Benton, is already upset by what has happened. But
we have seen Carter get side-tracked before. He lost some of his "people
first" approach during that phase when he was caught up in the competition
to do as many procedures as possible.
M.K.
Matthew Allan Chaput
spi...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (S. Pines) wrote:
>In article <jbm-050196...@cs108-2.u.washington.edu>,
>James Meek <j...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4cjm9k$7ps...@watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>
>>>In article <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com>,
Thanks! After I posted, I thought of both those points -- Shep's comments
as an expression of ease with homosexuality, versus Carol seeming to be
embarrassed by it. Could it be both?
I often use "reverse" humour with friends who are gay, or women, or
handicapped. Since they know me well, they know I don't really think like I'm
speaking, so they know I'm making fun of the stereotype. But since Shep was
talking to someone he doesn't know all that well (Randi), and Raoul wasn't
around, I know know if I'd say he was in "reverse" mode.
I definitely saw Carol as trying to shut Shep up with "He's Gay."
Geez, I don't think a scene has been analyzed this much since the Zapruder
film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Allan Chaput
Marlene Blanshay
>
> >The last scene was definitely a touching one. It just shows to prove
> >that not only is Benton an efficient doctor but he also cares for his
> >patients. He may not be the kind of doctor that showers the patient with
> >attention but he finds a way to shows he care and is doing his job.
> >I'm glad that he got into the surgery research team even if I have no
> >idea what the heck he's gotten himself into. But because all through out
> >the season, he's been yearning to be a top surgeon, I guess with him
> >being on that team, he's on his way. But does this mean, less time for
> >him hanging out in the ER? Hope not! I really like this Benton
> >character.
>
> I thought it was out of character (as they built it up earlier in the
episode)
> and too trite to be believable. I don't see Benton as ever having a bedside
> manner that begins to approach "caring."
>
> track, as that's how I like to dislike him. ;-)
>
>
>
total wipeout.I can't imagine what Jeannie saw in him, and it's obvious he
has no respect for her and probably never did. I keep wishing she'd stab
him with a scalpel! He is just a major pig.His attempt at a bedside manner
redeemed him not at all in my eyes.
--
=====================================================================
Marlene Blanshay ma...@blanshay.interax.net
Montreal - Quebec - Canada
=====================================================================
Brian Spollen
>
>I have trouble understanding Hathaway's criticism, as it seems to me that
>we often see Jeannie being quietly forceful and effective. However, these
>occasions are often not directly related to patient care and are performed
>outside Carol's presence (such as Jeannie's intervention with the gang
>members who brought in the dying priest.)
I think that, despite her initial (and convincing) denial that she had
"a problem" with PAs, Carol in fact *does* have some, um, "reservations".
She was very quick to lash out at the premise that nurses with years
and years of experience are to be subordinates to recently-trained
PAs. Of course, her point may be valid, but she certainly acted like
her line of reasoning had been festering for a while rather than
realized on the spur of the moment.
The question is, does she harbor a similar resentment against residents
and medical students? Shouldn't she, if the "problem" is nursing
experience versus more deeply-intensive training of doctors?
Alan Sepinwall
Brian Heath <heat...@servtech.com> wrote:
>In article <4ckq57$e...@onlink3.onlink.net>,
> an...@onlink.net (Andy Gural) wrote:
>
>* This file can be obtained from various web sites, why for God's
>*sake post it here. Sorry about being so lippy in the title line but
>*sheesh, not only will this gum up the news group for a week but what
>*happens when even one of the segments fails to be mirrored?
>
>Just for the record, the person who posted this article realizes he made a
>mistake and apologized to the folks in this newsgroup not too long ago.
>
All he apologized for was the number of posts, when posting *any*
binaries, even smaller ones, to non-binary groups, can cost some readers
of this group a lot of money, and may even cause certain service
providers that refuse to carry binary groups to drop this one.
Alan Sepinwall * e-mail: sepi...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Personal homepage: http://force.stwing.upenn.edu:8001/~sepinwal/
NYPD Blue page: http://force.stwing.upenn.edu:8001/~sepinwal/nypd.html
RANDOM QUOTE:
"Sometimes you can be a real pain in the ass!"
"That's because that is sometimes the fastest way to your brain."
-Fred Ward & Joel Grey, "Remo Williams"
eb...@tiac.net
>Actually, I thought Shep's sort-of insensitive comments about
>homosexuality ("Do you ever dress up like a Greco-Roman wrestler?")
>were a precurser to "the incident." I also think the bigotry came out
>of left field, and I'm really disappointed because I liked Shep, and I
>think the writers are going to make this more than a "slip."
>
I did not think this insensitive at all. And Carol was joining right in with him. I thought it a
very interesting way to give the impression that he is gay.
____
eb...@tiac.net
Brian Heath
* This file can be obtained from various web sites, why for God's
*sake post it here. Sorry about being so lippy in the title line but
*sheesh, not only will this gum up the news group for a week but what
*happens when even one of the segments fails to be mirrored?
Just for the record, the person who posted this article realizes he made a
mistake and apologized to the folks in this newsgroup not too long ago.
We all make dumb mistakes -- let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and
move on with life. :)
Brian Heath
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ ^ Brian Heath -- Photojournalist -- Rochester NY
@ @ http://www.servtech.com/public/heathbar
== v == heat...@servtech.com / heat...@cis.compuserve.com
^ No you cannot call 911! I'm downloading a program.
=================================================================
John Novak
>> Am I the only one who saw this gift as a bribe, offered just when
>> Benton was about to call Dr. V. on the inadequecy of the Clamp and Run
>> and his unethical exclusion of a negative case from his research? The
>> way I see it, a Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down, and now it
>> looks like Carter's the one to do it (especially since his manner
>> betrayed doubt when he had to convince "Ruby" to sign off on the C & R)
>Thank goodness! I thought I was going crazy...
Nah, I don't think so.
If Vucelich's grant proposal stated clearly, "We will be looking at
patients fitting within the following criteria" and Mrs. R. failed to
fall in those criteria, then there is no discrepancy to my mind.
It depends on the pre-imposed conditions.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
S. Pines
Meredith Lynn Goldsmith <ml...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>This is my husband's guess re Jeanie, and I think it's a good one.
>
>Al Boulet is going to start stalking/harrassing Jeanie. In the
>diner, when she got up to leave, he grabbed her arm and then she sat
>down and started talking to him again. A few reasons why this makes
>sense:
[-=snip=-]
>We never really knew why Jeanie left Al in the first place--she
>obliquely refers to "lots of things you never even knew about"
>
>This might explain Jeanie's ambivalence/sense of victimization. I
>agree with Scott and others that she was too quick to blame Peter
>for her poor evaluation. Carol's characterization of her as "timid"
>and "passive" may have also picked on an aspect of her personality
>that hasn't been too well explored. Jeanie may have been someone who
>would tolerate abuse.
[-=snip=-]
Well, one thing that caught my ear--when Jeanie sits back down,
Al started talking about maybe giving them another chance, that
he was ready for it all, and that there'd be no more cheating
and lying....Meaning that ~he'd~ been having affairs and didn't
know about ~Jeanie's~ straying with Benton. I sort of thought
that he'd been running around on her for a long time, and her
affair with Benton had been a kind of final straw for her; I
didn't get the sense that she'd been ~abused~ exactly, only
perhaps a little shut out and taken for granted.
Them's my $.02.
--S.
--
/\spi...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
/--\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/----\ #122. (Word for) Approximation.
|| -- Heraclitus
John Novak
In <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
Excellent summary, as always, Scott.
>E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
>PLOT ONE: THE LITTLE ONES
>gave them back because "a mother should be with her children". Most of
>the children get shuffled off to a shelter via a social worker, but a
>few of the sicker ones stay behind, including Michael, the hernia
>patient.
There were a bunch of threads left hanging on this one. Am I the only
person who thinks we might see at least a little more of these people?
For starters, the question of the child abuse was mentioned and
dropped in a heartbeat. Also, I'm no expert on child care (the mind
scarcely has the courage to boggle...) but can children really go from
a state of relative health to a state of drastic malnutrition in only
a month? Finally, were all those children related? There were words
to the effect that they weren't, since the kid who seemed to have been
"in charge" more or less didn't even know all their names.
And the little girl asking plaintively for someone to be her Momma
spoke of more than a month of a bad situation, to me.
>Benton owns up to Vucelich that his clamp-and-run wasn't a success on
>Helen Rubidue (see PLOT TWO), but Vucelich declares that Benton's work
>was "letter perfect" --
I don't remember Benton "owning up" to anything. I remember Benton
worrying out loud that his clamp-and-run wasn't good enough, and
Vucelich basically telling him to stop being a martyr.
>freshly-scrubbed Chicago Hope. The most interesting thing, to me, about
>this story is not the surprise of seeing Peter Benton act
>compassionately toward little children, but that seeing him do so was
>*not* a surprise, not anymore really. The writers (and Eriq La Salle)
>have succeeded in prying his shell open just enough so that moments like
>these are special and yet seem to flow from natural progression.
It wasn't a surprise to me, either.
There is a key difference between the two scenes, aside from Peter's
actions. In the first scene, where he is cold and brusque, there are
other people present. Even aside from the fact that he's annoyed with
Jeanie, the mere fact that other people, other adults, were present
brings up the emotional barriers.
In the later scene, Peter and the child are alone. It's still
difficult for him to express verbally his compassion, but his body
language and inflections are somewhat different as well.
Peter Benton is not a heartless bastard. As I've said before, Peter
Benton is a man who cares very deeply, but is afraid to let it show,
and has been for many years.
> The Carter story wasn't a whole lot more than the usual
>Carter-gets-attached-to-an-(elderly)-patient business, but Red Buttons
>had a couple of nice moments as the friendly but heartbroken "Ruby".
>There were a couple of signifiers in this episode that Carter is
>becoming more of a serious physician: not only the end scene with him on
>the phone with Red Buttons in the middle of the night, but also his
>increasing surliness (as one of the nurses took, in a particularly
>Benton-like bit). It was also a little refreshing for Carter to win out
>over Benton -- and be wrong (sort of).
Humph.
I got something _completely_ different out of this thread.
I TA an electronics lab, when classes are in session. That lab is an
all-day (literally, eight hours) affair, twice a week, so I get to see
quite a bit of my students. Consequently, I tended to focus on the
pedagogical aspects of the thread, with Vucelich as the ultimate
teacher.
Benton was right, and I don't really think anyone (with the exception
of Carter) thought any differently. Vucelich was teaching Carter
something in that episode. It was an object lesson to the effect of,
"Sometimes, you can't do anything."
The ethics may be somewhat hazy, but I don't think they were
completely odious. Of course, my preferred method of teaching
involves object lessons, as well. Sometimes, you just don't _learn_
until you've screwed up, and in this case, Carter screwed up in that
he didn't save the woman, but nothing bad came of it either. In fact,
Ruby at least had the consolation that someone was trying.
I'm undecided about Vucelich-- it remains to be seen whether he's
using Peter for his skin colour or not, or to what degree-- but I tend
to like him.
> I think, even though I've never held great love for the
>character before, it was the story of Jeanie that interested me the most
>this week, though. She is finally exploring some space on the show that
>doesn't directly involve Peter Benton; and, as hinted by her perplexing
>behavior during the affair, Jeanie is slowly being revealed as yet
>another flawed human being with personal problems of her own.
>Particularly telling was her conversation with Al at the diner.
Heh.
My eyes widened with understanding through that scene. Driven into an
affair by an uncompassionate, self-centered, workaholic.... with
someone who seems to be an uncompassionate, self-centered, workaholic.
> In the curious story of Shep and his big mouth, "ER" plays the
>race card for exactly the third time in thirty-six episodes, by my
>count, and the result is a little odd.
The whole scene felt oddly out of character for both Malik and Benton.
Shep was portrayed dead-on accurately as Shep, but Malik and Benton
had never seemed to be that touchy before.
> When I'd heard that Shep was
>going to let a racist comment slip (thanks a lot, you guys who post
>those things in subject headers -- I'd really rather have waited until I
>saw the show),
Let me amplify that statement-- that's just plain rude.
If you have spoilers, put them in a post labelled "Spoilers" and don't
give anything away in the bloody subject line. Sheesh. The Babylon 5
newsgroup is completely unreadable because of things like that, and
I'd really prefer to watch at least one show where I can participate
in the on-line discussion.
>it concerned me because as bull-headed as Shep is, I
>never saw anything in his character that pointed to prejudice; in fact,
>I was using the Raoul defense as a counter-example before Shep was.
>However, the way it happened made me relieved. It was just Shep
>speaking out of turn as he often does. He's not really a racist, but he
>does have a chronic tendancy to talk before thinking, and what he did in
>this episode was a direct relation to his crass reference to suicide in
>"The Secret Sharer" a few weeks ago.
Poor Shep. He took a rather undeserved beating in that episode,
because Malik got a bug up his ass about one simple phrase. Listen to
Shep's voice. He didn't mean "these black people." He might not have
even meant "these welfare people." I thought he meant exactly what he
said. "These people." Those specific people and their specific
neighbors.
Look at what he does for a living. He drives around the city in an
ambulance-- in service to the people of the city, no matter what kind
of people they are-- and takes a risk of being shot every time he goes
out.
Look at his friend Raul. Not exactly the stereotypical friend of a
racist or a bigot.
I don't think Shep is a racist.
Shep's an interesting character. I'm beginning to understand why they
brough him into the show. All the other main characters are
_extremely_ educated people. Doctors and nurses, for the most part.
And while driving an ambulance requires no small amount of training
and intellect, putting him in contact with doctors and nurses makes
Shep a kind of everyman or Average Joe in comparison.
This is further brought out by the fact that Shep is _very_ blunt in
nature, typically speaking just exactly what's on his mind. As he
said, if he'd meant "These black people" he'd probably have said just
exactly that. And brought out even more in that Shep is not the most
articulate of men.
The second scene between Shep and Malik was a good example of all
these things in action. Shep was trying like hell to apologize and
convince Malik that he hadn't meant to give offense. It was painful,
not because it was insincere, but simply because Shep is not an
elegant speaker. And Malik knew he had Shep where he wanted him--
Malik is smart enough to know that a charge of racism just can't, in
general, be defended. It's like being asked if you still beat your
wife. Just the accusation or the defense against it is damning.
> -"ER" outs its first recurring gay character: Raoul, Shep's
> partner, whom Randi has flipped for here and in past weeks. I
> think I like the fact that very little was made of the issue.
As I'm sure others have mentioned, that was brought out in this
episode to show that Shep knows about Raoul's homosexuality, but
doesn't think it's a big deal either.
Not a sacred cow, given his colorful terms, but not a big deal.
John Novak
> far more attuned to its existence. As a matter of fact, I suspect
> that this episode is examining Benton's and Malik's trigger-happy
> reaction as it was Shep's ill-considered wording (if not latent racism):
> do members of some groups --- black, in this instance --- "read into"
> others' words and see racism that isn't there?
I agree. My main complaint is that the episode seemed out of
character for Malik and Benton. It would have made more sense had one
or the other just treated (or been turned away from) a patient who
_was_ obviously racist.
And speaking anecdotally, yes some members of some groups can read too
much into others' words. My officemate in particular drives me nuts
every once in a while by drumming up some poor bastard's off-the-cuff
comment into proof that every man in the world is out to get her.
She seems oddly incapable of realizing that calling someone a Bohemian
is generally not a compliment, and that even if she did mean it as a
compliment, it's not a terribly good way to say it.
(She uses "Bohemian" to mean someone with artistic tendencies. She
means it as a compliment, in complete, willful ignorance of the
history of the term, and without realizing that that's tantamount to
saying, "All blacks have good rhythym."
(I'm generally not touchy _that_ about that. Only with her, since
she refuses to get the point, when she of all people should.
Stereotype women, even positively, and she goes all non-linear.)
Scott Hollifield
: Excellent summary, as always, Scott.
Thank you. :)
: There were a bunch of threads left hanging on this one. Am I the only
: person who thinks we might see at least a little more of these people?
I tend to disagree, if only because this show is very picky about the
external plots (i.e. unrelated directly to a main cast member) that it
lets carry over into future episodes.
: I don't remember Benton "owning up" to anything. I remember Benton
: worrying out loud that his clamp-and-run wasn't good enough, and
: Vucelich basically telling him to stop being a martyr.
That's essentially what I meant -- that Benton was trying to claim blame
for himself.
: There is a key difference between the two scenes, aside from Peter's
: actions. In the first scene, where he is cold and brusque, there are
: other people present. Even aside from the fact that he's annoyed with
: Jeanie, the mere fact that other people, other adults, were present
: brings up the emotional barriers.
Agreed -- this is an important distinction.
: Humph.
: I got something _completely_ different out of this thread.
: Benton was right, and I don't really think anyone (with the exception
: of Carter) thought any differently. Vucelich was teaching Carter
: something in that episode. It was an object lesson to the effect of,
: "Sometimes, you can't do anything."
Well... I think my assessment was still partially accurate. :-) The
only difference being that Vucelich was letting Carter make his mistakes,
instead of holding himself aloof and trusting Carter's judgement. I do
like your way of describing it, though.
: I'm undecided about Vucelich-- it remains to be seen whether he's
: using Peter for his skin colour or not, or to what degree-- but I tend
: to like him.
I still like him too, even if most folks on this newsgroup have decided
that he's an unethical bastard.
: The whole scene felt oddly out of character for both Malik and Benton.
: Shep was portrayed dead-on accurately as Shep, but Malik and Benton
: had never seemed to be that touchy before.
Benton, maybe not, but I could easily see this fitting the previously-
sketchy picture of Malik we've gotten. Granted that Shep needed a foil
for the sequence to work, but they could have picked a less appropriate
one (Haleh or Jeanie for example).
: Poor Shep. He took a rather undeserved beating in that episode,
: because Malik got a bug up his ass about one simple phrase. Listen to
: Shep's voice. He didn't mean "these black people." He might not have
: even meant "these welfare people." I thought he meant exactly what he
: said. "These people." Those specific people and their specific
: neighbors.
I agree, but Shep was less than eloquent in trying to defend himself.
Saying, "If I'd have meant 'black', I would have said 'black'!" was not
the best route of backpedalling he could have taken. :-)
Scott Hollifield
: In <4ckkoi$2...@spectator.cris.com> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
: >Agreed. More telling (and more objectionable) than his "those people"
: >remark was Shep's feeling that things were "all right" and that nobody
: >owed anybody anything in today's society. I've heard the same thing from
: >other people who mistakenly believe that racism has ceased to be an
: >insidious presence in American life.
: I chalked that up to simple ineloquence more than anything else. I'd
: imagine Shep is pretty aware that acism exists. And further, even
: assuming for a moment that Shep is a wide-eyed innocent on that point,
: does unawareness of racism make one a racist by default?
Of course not, and I proposed no such thing. What I meant was that I
reacted more unfavorably to this comment, which might indicate a less
than realistic understanding of contemporary racism, than Shep's more
controversial comment, which I think was neither racist nor ignorant.
--
eb...@tiac.net
>Is it safe to assume that it's Mark and Susan now?????
>
All I can say, is that as soon as she invited him in, I knew the NG would go crazy.
____
eb...@tiac.net
Ceon Ramon
<livel...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
'Darlene Long-Thompson <s_he...@sentex.net>' wrote:
>>the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
>>was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
>>grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
>>its the drugs...shades of Chloe
>I didn't think Susan was thinking about how Chloe loves little Susie - I
>thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have been
>sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is good with
>them, and she can care for them.
She can? How the heck do you get THAT?
Item: the children were severely malnourished and dehydrated, had lice and
ringworm and serious untreated medical conditions, not to mention the poor
little chap with CP who had been beaten (most likely by his brother Troy,
another little boy who in any compassionate world would not be expected to
be the sole caretaker of a younger handicapped sibling); I seriously doubt
that one of them of age had spent a single day in school.
Item: The grandmother has an apparently unshakable belief that "children
belong with their mother."
Item: This belief led her to turn these small helpless beings over to
her drug-addicted daughter while very likely knowing at some gut-level
that her daughter was consorting with a bunch of other drug addicts who
didn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of the children.
Item: There was no evidence that at any time since she turned these kids
over to her daughter she made any attempt to visit them, to check on
them, to follow up on their health and well-being.
>But their mother has all
>the legal rights and grandma has none.
Am I mistaken about this? I thought the grandmother told the staff that
she _voluntarily_ turned the kids over to her daughter, even though
she, the grandmother, had legal custody and responsibility for these
sad, abandoned little kids, because "children belong with their mother."
So if you're proposing that the grandmother is the best custodian to
guarentee the welfare of these little ones, I respectfully disagree. I
will be willing to entertain any evidence that I seriously misinterpreted
the vignette.
--Barbara
livel...@usa.pipeline.com
have been sent with their grandma. Ceon Ramon (Barbara) disagreed with the
grandmother's ability to care for them, pointing out that the children were
malnourished, had lice and ringworm and serious untreated medical
conditions .
I do not recall any time frame being given for how long the children had
been with their mother, but I made the assumption it had been long enough
for these problems to develop. (The one area in which Barbara has a good
point would be in their dental care, apparently neglected for long time.)
I based my assessment more on the grandmothers interaction with the
children. She was gentle and loving and they responded well to her. They
obeyed her promptly and willingly and just seemed to interact well with
her. The little one with CP kept reaching back to her as he was carried
away.
Barbara stated that the grandmother's belief that children belong with
their mother apparently "led her to turn these small helpless beings over
to her drug-addicted daughter while very likely knowing at some gut-level
that her daughter was consorting with a bunch of other drug addicts who
understanding that the grandmother gave the kids back to their mother
because she seemed to be getting her life back together. That was terribly
naive on Grandma's part, but understandable. I would have to agree that
Grandma had to have known that the odds were good that her daughter
wouldn't stay clean, but I think her love for her daughter and her belief
in her daughter's love for the children made her hope for the best. Also,
she is an old woman and the prospect of raising grandchildren is a
physical and financial burden. She would _want_ to believe her daughter
was going to stay able to care for them. Finally, I am not sure that she
was aware of the lucrative finances of warehousing children - several of
the ER staff didn't seem to be - so I don't think we can assume that she
know about this possibility.
Barbara's point that the grandmother apparently made no attempt to assure
the kids were OK after she gave them back to their mother is the strongest
evidence that she isn't fit to care for them. I guess I again made an
assumption -- this time that the mother had simply disappeared with the
kids and she couldn't follow up. But on thinking further about this, I
realized Grandma could have contacted authorities and had them trace the
children through the welfare checks. (Of course, any script writer worth
their salt could quickly turn this into a foul-up in the child welfare
system --- she reported it and repeatedly asked for them to be found but
papers were misplaced, the government budget shutdown prevented action, or,
since she had given them back voluntarily she had automatically
relinquished custody and now had no legal recourse for finding them!)
Anyway, without some big help from the script writers, I'll have to cede to
Barbara that Grandma's isn't the best place for the kids even though it
would be a familiar, loving environment where they could stay together.
She might be great for cookies and milk and hugs and kisses, but if Grandma
didn't take action about their living conditions or report that they had
disappeared, she is seriously lacking in her ability to care for them.
M.K.
G. M. Lupo
> I don't think the point is whether Shep meant "black people" by
> "these people" or not. The point is that Benton and Malik under-
> stood it that way, and, given the history of race relations in
> the U.S., they were really perfectly justified in doing so. I
> think there's a pretty insidious history of white people who ~did~
> mean "black people" when they said "these/those people," and I've
> seen similar altercations arise around the use of such a phrase.
My take on this was that Shep was simply parrotting a phrase (i.e. "these
people") that he's probably heard all his life, without considering the
implications of the words. At different times, "these people" could have
meant blacks, hispanics, jews, gays -- well, you get the point. In
reality, Shep may have simply been lumping all "people" who are involved
in drugs, or who abandon or mistreat their kids into one category,
without regard to race, but since the kids in question were black, his
statement was taken as a racist remark.
I've found, however, that in this day and age, "racism" has become such
an overused term, that it can be employed to refer to just about anything
or anyone. For instance, if I criticize Terry Bradshaw for being a bad
sportscaster (I'm not, because I don't follow sports enough to make this
call), then I'm just stating my opinion. However, if I criticize Lynn
Swann for the same reason, then something sinister is often times implied
in that criticism. Perhaps this will change as more blacks become
prominent in society, but who knows?
Matt Lupo
--
G. M. Lupo: ham...@lupo.com
P.O. Box 161963, Atlanta, GA 30321-1963
<http://www.webcom.com/~hamlet/welcome.html>
<http://www.lupo.com/~hamlet/lupo_com.html>
John Novak
>I don't know that I necessarily want to hold up Carol as a paragon
>of open-mindedness, but it does seem that she's a lot more reserved
>and considered in sharing her opinions, and so I'm inclined to judge
>Shep's general social awareness against Carol's range of embarrass-
>ment. In the cafeteria, for example, she was clearly mortified;
Of course she was mortified.
Aside from the fact that Shep was turning something between him and
Malik into public knowledge, it also involved racism. The last post I
read just asserted that anyone who defends themself against the charge
of racism is, by default, racist.
Too many people think like that.
>does anyone remember how she reacted to his first mention of "those
>people"?
No, not specifically, but Carol thinks faster than Shep. I think
faster than Shep, too. I saw the whole incident unfold in my mind
before Malik ever said a word.
John Novak
>I really think Shep's comments about homosexuality reflect more of a
>comfort with and acceptance of homosexuality, and a recognition of the
>popular stereotypes associated with gay men, than a reflection of any
>prejudice. ("Clueless" took a similar tack, playing popular gay
>stereotypes for laughs.)
Likewise, I took it as a sign of his friendship with Raoul. For some
reason, I don't find it difficult to picture him using those phrases
in conversation with Raoul, and I don't see Raoul jumping all over his
case for it.
You can say things to or about a friend you could never say to or
about a stranger.
John Novak
>re: the "justifying himself to the cafeteria to make himself seem not
>guilty" I think the very fact that he felt he did have to justify
>himself proves he is guilty.
Gr-ahrgh!
I _knew_ someone was going to say something to this effect.
Bullshit!
It's that sort of thinking which makes the cry "racist" such a damning
accusation. If merely trying to defend yourself against an accusation
already makes you guilty of it, then what the hell are you supposed to
do?
Have you stopped beating your children, yet?
J. Ellis McAdams
: In <4ckkoi$2...@spectator.cris.com> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
: I chalked that up to simple ineloquence more than anything else. I'd
: imagine Shep is pretty aware that acism exists. And further, even
: assuming for a moment that Shep is a wide-eyed innocent on that point,
: does unawareness of racism make one a racist by default?
Yes.
Racism is complicated and pervasive. If you live in a racist society and
you enjoy white-skin privilege, you are participating in racism, perhaps
passively, perhaps unconsciously. But you are still entitled, and your
entitlement depends on racism.
: I think not.
: --
S. Pines
Tom Hall <th...@rr.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>In article <30ef3de4...@news.tiac.net>, eb...@tiac.net says...
>>
>>JCL...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu wrote:
>>
>>> but what would have happened if the kids
>>> had been white?
>>
>>Good point. It that had been the case, nothing at all would have come
>>from the comment that Shep had made. They all would have agreed.
>
>Precisely. Since when have white people had the monopoly on racism?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, it was Benton and Malik (sp) who came out of that
>exchange looking like the racists...
I've been thinking about these exchanges -- the one on TV and
the one on-line -- and I honestly don't know what kind of racist
Shep is, or whether I'd want to call him a racist at all. (I
suspect that I probably do, but if he is, he'd be so kinda by
default, simply by failing to acknowledge that he does, however
inadvertently, benefit from white privilege. But that's not the
point I wanted to make.)
I don't think the point is whether Shep meant "black people" by
"these people" or not. The point is that Benton and Malik under-
stood it that way, and, given the history of race relations in
the U.S., they were really perfectly justified in doing so. I
think there's a pretty insidious history of white people who ~did~
mean "black people" when they said "these/those people," and I've
seen similar altercations arise around the use of such a phrase.
I think it's one of those things that's a little hard to see
if it hasn't been levelled against you personally (i.e., if you're
white or have sufficient social standing), and the entire incident
just goes to point out that most of us (minority and non-minority
both) are racist in so far as we learn from a very very early
age that the way we're treated depends in large part to what we
look like. And, ultimately, that means that the world seen
through minority eyes really is a very different one from that
seen through majority eyes; and a simple phrase like "these
people" then really does mean two entirely different things
depending on the context and history of use.
But enough of my idle musing.
--S.
--
/\spi...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
/--\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "They are challenging my
/----\ beliefs here--and it's really starting to piss me off."
|| -- A.W., 7/20/89
Ryan McCune
>Ceon Ramon (ce...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Sorry; I don't see surliness as either a good sign of professional
>: development or a requisite for being a serious physician. And I happen to
>: have a particular dislike for doctors who are rude to nurses.
>I didn't say it was GOOD, I meant only that Carter is becoming more
>wrapped up in the rigors of his job, and less the relatively happy
>maverick from last season.
Perhaps we are now seeing the process that made Benton as "surly" as
he is. It seems that due to the amount of time doctors (and
especially surgeons) spend around each other and the lack of time
spent around real people, they can become out-of-touch with how people
like to be treated. Fortunately, Carter is showing signs that he will
resist that tendency.
-Ryan
John Novak
>Agreed. More telling (and more objectionable) than his "those people"
>remark was Shep's feeling that things were "all right" and that nobody
>owed anybody anything in today's society. I've heard the same thing from
>other people who mistakenly believe that racism has ceased to be an
>insidious presence in American life.
I chalked that up to simple ineloquence more than anything else. I'd
imagine Shep is pretty aware that acism exists. And further, even
assuming for a moment that Shep is a wide-eyed innocent on that point,
does unawareness of racism make one a racist by default?
I think not.
Tom Hall
>>Just for the record, the person who posted this article realizes he made a
>>mistake and apologized to the folks in this newsgroup not too long ago.
>>
>All he apologized for was the number of posts, when posting *any*
>binaries, even smaller ones, to non-binary groups, can cost some readers
>of this group a lot of money, and may even cause certain service
>providers that refuse to carry binary groups to drop this one.
Exactly. The nature of his apology certainly didn't reveal any understanding on his
part as to _why_ so many people were flaming him.
I emailed him a succinct statement about what he had done, and cc'd postmaster and
root at his site.
Tom
John Novak
>: I chalked that up to simple ineloquence more than anything else. I'd
>: imagine Shep is pretty aware that acism exists. And further, even
>: assuming for a moment that Shep is a wide-eyed innocent on that point,
>: does unawareness of racism make one a racist by default?
>Of course not, and I proposed no such thing. What I meant was that I
>reacted more unfavorably to this comment, which might indicate a less
>than realistic understanding of contemporary racism, than Shep's more
>controversial comment, which I think was neither racist nor ignorant.
Sorry. I'm just pontificating for the masses and trying to stir up a
little discussion. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
Ghandi
>Yes, there's nod doubt tha Benton is a good doctor but as a human being, a
>total wipeout.I can't imagine what Jeannie saw in him, and it's obvious he
>has no respect for her and probably never did. I keep wishing she'd stab
>him with a scalpel! He is just a major pig.His attempt at a bedside manner
>redeemed him not at all in my eyes.
I agree. Benton is a pig. But I think his showing a moment of
bedside manner is representative of what some physcians do. They are
assholes 95% of the time and they think that 5min of caring makes them
a doctor with a good bedside manner. He is still a jerk in my eyes.
In peace,
Ghandi
__
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, gtg...@bev.net
But I have promises to keep, ghan...@aol.com
and miles to go before I sleep,
and miles to go before I sleep.---RF
If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable.--MLK
Mathew Englander
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>If Vucelich's grant proposal stated clearly, "We will be looking at
>patients fitting within the following criteria" and Mrs. R. failed to
>fall in those criteria, then there is no discrepancy to my mind.
We really don't have enough information yet to condemn Vucelich; but
it looked to me that there was something fishy going on. Why was
it only *after* the patient started to die that Vucelich decided
not to include her? It seemed to me that if she had survived, she would
have been included. If that is an accurate assessment of Vucelich's
tactics, they really are academically unethical.
Mathew Englander
doug redmond
>
>re: the "justifying himself to the cafeteria to make himself seem not
>guilty" I think the very fact that he felt he did have to justify
>comment applied only to the parents of the children until all that other
>stuff started spewing out. I think he does have racist feelings that he
>does not admit to himself. MOM
>
I agree with your observation about Shep. I think he does have some
racist feelings down deep. I thought I caught Raul and sheps
conversation at the beginning of the show when Raul said Shep was
crazy about Madonna, until she started seeing Dennis Rodman. Maybe
he didn't like a white girl seeing a black man?
Joanne
d. hall
Library> re: the "justifying himself to the cafeteria to make himself seem
Library> not guilty" I think the very fact that he felt he did have to
Library> justify himself proves he is guilty. I though originally the
Library> "these people" comment applied only to the parents of the children
Library> until all that other stuff started spewing out. I think he does
Library> have racist feelings that he does not admit to himself. MOM
sensativity in the sense that you're aware of a sitution in all possible
venue makes you VERY paranoid, and also see things which may or may not
exist. the current argument that lack of appreciation of racism is a cause
of implicit racism, you can not take the other extreme and hope that doing
"witch-hunting" will center the pendulum. i have seen these occurances
severals times in my experiences, and it IS a key issue with modern day
society.
d.
--
<<If you're so perfect, try walking on water.>>
~anonymous scriptor
JWooten
>Perhaps we are now seeing the process that made Benton as "surly" as
>he is. It seems that due to the amount of time doctors (and
>especially surgeons) spend around each other and the lack of time
>spent around real people, they can become out-of-touch with how people
Doctors aren't real people?
john
----
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is putting up with all the idiots in the world."--Calvin
"If, several years from now, you find me in an airport selling petunias and looking lobotomized, I'd appreciate your strangling me."--Opus
JWooten
>From: j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak)
>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>Date: 7 Jan 1996 01:55:07 -0600
>In <4cif44$9...@spectator.cris.com> Sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
>Excellent summary, as always, Scott.
>>E.R., Season 2, Episode 11, "Dead of Winter"
>>PLOT ONE: THE LITTLE ONES
>>gave them back because "a mother should be with her children". Most of
>>the children get shuffled off to a shelter via a social worker, but a
>>few of the sicker ones stay behind, including Michael, the hernia
>>patient.
>There were a bunch of threads left hanging on this one. Am I the only
>person who thinks we might see at least a little more of these people?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
These people? What are you, a racist :) :)?
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
Heather L. Garvey
>'Darlene Long-Thompson <s_he...@sentex.net>' wrote:
>
>
>>the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
>>was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
>>grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
>>its the drugs...shades of Chloe
>
>I didn't think Susan was thinking about how Chloe loves little Susie - I
>thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have been
>sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is good with
>the legal rights and grandma has none. That is the same position Susan
>will find herself in when Chloe returns for Susie.
This is not true, however. The grandmother had legal custody
and GAVE the children back to the drug-abusing mom because she thought
"children belong w/ their mother". This reminded me strongly of the
co-dependent relationship that Susan had with Chloe. I think Susan's
hoping the grandmother gets wise like she did.
AND, I'm pretty sure Susan adopted little Susie, so, money
or no, Chloe no longer has custody of her. The extra money didn't
come until way after the time limits for abandonment (the episode
where Susan contemplated adoption was at the cusp of that limit and
we've had a number of eps since then, I think).
>Worse yet, Susan would like to
>believe she would never make the mistake of letting Chloe take Susie back
>once she (Susan) had custody, but she saw that this woman had done just
>that out of love and hope.
Of course, that was the love between a mother and daughter....
Susan would really stand up to Chloe to protect HER daughter. Mother-
daughter love comes before sister-sister love, and Susan was fed up
with Chloe long before her child was involved. :)
--
Heather Garvey Play: h...@po.cwru.edu
Systems Administrator Work: gar...@cig.mot.com
http://www.cig.mot.com/~garvey
snail://USA/60004/IL/Arlington_Hts./1501_W._Shure_Dr./Rm._2231/Heather_Garvey
Melanie A. L. LaClair
>In article <4cm4i9$f...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>,
> <livel...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>>But their mother has all
>>the legal rights and grandma has none.
>Am I mistaken about this? I thought the grandmother told the staff that
>she _voluntarily_ turned the kids over to her daughter, even though
>she, the grandmother, had legal custody and responsibility for these
>sad, abandoned little kids, because "children belong with their mother."
This was my understanding as well--the grandmother had legal custody
but turned the children over to the crack-addicted mother.
Melanie.
J.J. Jimenez
>From: ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon)
>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>If Carter is beginning to treat nursing staff like his personal slaves,
>expressing temper whenever they question him, this is not a good sign.
>Well, I exaggerate. But I have to say that in my experience a doctor who
>is rude to the staff who serve the patients is also rude to the patients.
>And that I hate to see this happening to John.
>--Barbara
As a medical student I can tell you that if I had barked an order like the one
Carter did to that nurse I would have been the laughing stock of the hospital.
Where I am at...and I suspect this is true of most teaching hospitals...med
students are at the very bottom of the food chain. They might be above the
student nurses but that doesn't mean that they will follow med students
orders.
--
J.J. Jimenez
University of Illinois at Chicago
E-Mail: u62...@uicvm.uic.edu
Suzanne Leibee
that neglect their children while pursuing the addiction?
Ceon Ramon
James Meek <j...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <4ckkoi$2...@spectator.cris.com>, Sco...@cris.com (Scott
>Hollifield) wrote:
>>She was confrontational with Peter even before she received the results
>>of her evaluation. I think she was looking to pick a fight with Peter
>>because he's the one person she finds it easy to lash out at.
>I think this is one thing that Jeanie's going to have to overcome--the
>idea that Peter's behind all of her difficulties in the ER. He is an easy
>focus for her frustrations, but he certainly doesn't seem to have the
>inclination any longer (if he ever did) to interfere with her education
>and/or career.
This is true, but on the other hand he certainly seemed to be responding
to Jeanie's request that he examine the little boy for a hernia in a
petulant way that seemed to be directing anger specifically at Jeanie. I
was thinking, "Whoa, whoa, WHOA, be CAREFUL, you're _hurting_him!" when he
was _jabbing_ at the kid.
Remember that Peter was his momma's baby. He's considerably younger than
his siblings, was clearly momma's pet, and I think we can see this in an
expectation to be treated with deference by women. Well, perhaps not all
women -- he doesn't seem to do this with Susan or Hicks or Weaver, but
maybe with women who were in an intimate relationship with him.
It seems clear to me that he still harbors some resentment about Jeanie
calling off their affair, and that he doesn't like it when she's in a
position to direct him to do something, like the examination of the
little boy.
Oddly enough, Peter seems more like a spoiled kid to me than does Carter,
despite John's privileged family background. Perhaps this is because of
Carter's early introduction to suffering (his younger brother dying of
leukemia, and John being in the position of the child who is shoved off
and ignored while the parents concentrate their love and attention on the
sick child, ignoring the well child's needs and insecurities not to
mention the fact that he too loved his brother but was unable to do
anything for him).
That's a mess of a sentence, sorry!
--Barbara
Suzanne Leibee
the surgery team and data go, this smacks of art imitating life (breast
cancer data scandal with NIH about 2 years ago....the sting remains!)
JWooten
>We really don't have enough information yet to condemn Vucelich; but
>it looked to me that there was something fishy going on. Why was
>it only *after* the patient started to die that Vucelich decided
>not to include her? It seemed to me that if she had survived, she would
>have been included. If that is an accurate assessment of Vucelich's
>tactics, they really are academically unethical.
>Mathew Englander
Does anyone think that Carter's talk of Vucelich ("one of the best vascular
surgeons in the country") to Ruby before the consent and the Vucelich's
subsequent *non* performance of the operation will arise later? Seems to be
that would mean that Carter would've gotten the consent under false pretense
and he could perhaps be in trouble down the road...maybe creating a dilemma
for Benton if Vucelich fingers Carter
Then again, I'm carrying my idea a bit far ahead...
John
Lissand
(snip)
> The question is, does she harbor a similar resentment against residents
> and medical students? Shouldn't she, if the "problem" is nursing
> experience versus more deeply-intensive training of doctors?
The training is only part of it. The hierarchy and responsibilities
between nurses and medical students is clearly defined. It is not so
with physician's assistants. The responsibilities of the RN and the PA
are fuzzy and there's plenty of room for rivalry.
Plus do you remember the little exchange when they were first examining
the overweight woman who later had the twins? Dr. Greene was ordering
various tests and told Jeannie to do a rectal exam on the patient. She
grimaced and the nurse looked at her triumphantly - until Dr. Greene
told the nurse to help!
Anthony Wyrick
>In article <4cm4i9$f...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>,
> <livel...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
> >>the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
> >>was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
> >>grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
> >>its the drugs...shades of Chloe
>
>
>>I didn't think Susan was thinking about how Chloe loves little Susie -
>>I thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have
>>been sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is
>She can? How the heck do you get THAT?
<Barbara's excellent 'brief' snipped for space considerations>
>So if you're proposing that the grandmother is the best custodian to
>guarentee the welfare of these little ones, I respectfully disagree. I
>will be willing to entertain any evidence that I seriously >misinterpreted the vignette.
No, you didn't misinterpret the vignette, but you *did* change my mind.
I initially, and superficially, thought the grandmother would be a good
caretaker, too. But as I read your 'brief', I realized there were too
many things that I didn't consider. The "Items" that you laid out were
all very logical expectations that any responsible person would consider.
The grandmother *should* have known that this was going on, no matter
what she said. And I think the tenor of your 'Items' probably played out
in the nurse's mind as she stared at the grandmother when the chldren
were being carried out.
Anthony
Karin E Dietterich
> <livel...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>>'Darlene Long-Thompson <s_he...@sentex.net>' wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the carrying off of the one with the C.P.
>>>was particularly touching - also Susan's reaction to the
>>>grandmas speech about her daughter loving those babies - but
>>>its the drugs...shades of Chloe
>>
>>I didn't think Susan was thinking about how Chloe loves little Susie - I
>>thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have been
>>sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is good with
>>the legal rights and grandma has none. That is the same position Susan
>>will find herself in when Chloe returns for Susie.
>
> This is not true, however. The grandmother had legal custody
>and GAVE the children back to the drug-abusing mom because she thought
>"children belong w/ their mother". This reminded me strongly of the
>co-dependent relationship that Susan had with Chloe. I think Susan's
>hoping the grandmother gets wise like she did.
> AND, I'm pretty sure Susan adopted little Susie, so, money
>or no, Chloe no longer has custody of her. The extra money didn't
>come until way after the time limits for abandonment (the episode
>where Susan contemplated adoption was at the cusp of that limit and
>we've had a number of eps since then, I think).
I don't think Susan has officially adopted little Susie yet. I think
she did have Chloe's parental rights revoked and so Susan is little Susie's
legal guardian. I know she did decide to go for the adoption, but I doubt
it's final yet. The money that Chloe sent is undocumented, in that she
sent cash. I wonder what Susan did with it....
Karin
_____ ____ ____ | Karin E. Dietterich
| | / | __|| \ | k...@ssd.intel.com
| \ | __|| | | | Intel Server Systems Product Division
|__|__||____||____/ | #include <std/disclaimer.h>
"The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Ninth Symphony."
--Christa Ptatschek
kimberly groat olsen
> >thought she was relating to the grandmother. The kids should have been
> >sent with their grandma. She loves them, they love her, she is good with
> She can? How the heck do you get THAT?
> Item: the children were severely malnourished and dehydrated, had lice and
> ringworm and serious untreated medical conditions, not to mention the poor
> little chap with CP who had been beaten (most likely by his brother Troy,
> another little boy who in any compassionate world would not be expected to
> be the sole caretaker of a younger handicapped sibling); I seriously doubt
> that one of them of age had spent a single day in school.
Whoa, you lost me there. To quote you, how the heck do you get _THAT?_
Troy was always showing the utmost of concern for his younger brother,
and if I remember correctly (I could be very wrong on this) they were
cigarette burns. It seems much more likely that Troy's drugged out
mother or one of her friends is responsible for the abuse, regardless of
the form (burn, cut, bruise, etc).
Overall though, I have to agree with your contention Barbara. The
grandmother may have the best of intentions for her grandchildren, but she
loses the ability to make such decisions when she makes flagrant
errors with respect to thier well-being...like giving them back to their
mother and not checking on them.
> --Barbara
Kim Groat Olsen
kgr...@indiana.edu
Debra Fran Baker
>>She can? How the heck do you get THAT?
> <Barbara's excellent 'brief' snipped for space considerations>
>>So if you're proposing that the grandmother is the best custodian to
>>guarentee the welfare of these little ones, I respectfully disagree. I
>>will be willing to entertain any evidence that I seriously >misinterpreted the vignette.
>No, you didn't misinterpret the vignette, but you *did* change my mind.
>I initially, and superficially, thought the grandmother would be a good
>caretaker, too. But as I read your 'brief', I realized there were too
>many things that I didn't consider. The "Items" that you laid out were
>all very logical expectations that any responsible person would consider.
>The grandmother *should* have known that this was going on, no matter
>what she said. And I think the tenor of your 'Items' probably played out
>in the nurse's mind as she stared at the grandmother when the chldren
>were being carried out.
Remember something else - while this doesn't automatically disqualify the
grandmother, since even the best mothers can have problem children - it
was presumably *she* who raised the mother of those children. It should
at least raise some doubt in the minds of family service.
Debra
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* For its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace. *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Debra Fran Baker dfb...@panix.com
Ceon Ramon
>: both Morgenstern and Mark urged her to be more assertive. This is good
>: stuff, as this is a problem women in particular often either have (or are
>: perceived to have) in high-powered, high-stress professions.
>
>I was also reminded of Susan's friction with Dr. Kaysen, and meant to
>mention it in the review.
Thanks for your tactful correction of Kaysen's name; all I could remember
was that it was a trochee beginning with a "kay" sound.
>: It was amusing, too, to see Jeannie being VERY assertive, in fact
>: downright confrontative, with Peter immediately after her talk with Carol.
>
>She was confrontational with Peter even before she received the results
>of her evaluation. I think she was looking to pick a fight with Peter
>because he's the one person she finds it easy to lash out at.
oops! Thanks again :-)
>: >There were a couple of signifiers in this episode that Carter is
>: >becoming more of a serious physician: not only the end scene with him on
>: >the phone with Red Buttons in the middle of the night, but also his
>: >increasing surliness
>
>: Sorry; I don't see surliness as either a good sign of professional
>: development or a requisite for being a serious physician. And I happen to
>: have a particular dislike for doctors who are rude to nurses.
>
>I didn't say it was GOOD, I meant only that Carter is becoming more
>wrapped up in the rigors of his job, and less the relatively happy
>maverick from last season.
Let me correct that, then: as a signifier that Carter is becoming more of
a serious physican, I don't believe surliness is a sign of growth. I
understand this: he's becoming more involved in the non-personal aspects
of his cases, but also he is coming to expect that anyone who is in a
subservient position should jump when he says jump and obey him without
question. I further understand that if he's rude to those who are there
to serve the patients, the patients will be the ones to suffer. Because
the nurses, in addition to the medical students and interns, are those who
really are *there* and understand what's happening to the patient and how
the patient is responding each in his own individual way to the prescribed
treatment, the doctor needs to listen when the nurse says e.g.
the patient is not responding well to this prescribed course of meds.
Scott Hollifield
: It seems clear to me that he still harbors some resentment about Jeanie
: position to direct him to do something, like the examination of the
: little boy.
The way I read it, it wasn't as simpl,e as Jeanie calling off the
affair. Peter essentially forced Jeanie to make a decision ("You gotta
tell him"), and it was only then that Jeanie chose to stay faithful to Al
(although it appears she may have acted a little pre-emptively).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
John Novak
>Yes, this IS done with come experimental treatments, but the difference is
>that the "compassionate use" patients are so identified BEFORE the
>treatment is performed, not AFTER the treatment has failed.
>See the difference?
Vucelich's tone implied to me that he had identified her as a
compassionate use patient before anyone ever touched her. He hadn't
informed _us_, and he it's vaguely conceivable (though doubtful) that
he hadn't informed Benton, but I thought he had placed her in that
category before and was just reminding people of.
I may have missed something from a previous episode, though.
jou...@utdallas.edu
saw NOTHING racist in his remark. I thought that everyone else's
prejudices were showing when they automatically assumed he was racist.
If Malik had said "these people", everyone would have known he meant.
I just wish he would have explained himself better!
Ken Rudolph
: I also noticed that Vucelich made a comment as to how Ruby's wife shouldn't be
: included in the study as she was a high risk candidate to begin with (or
: something to that effect). If this is the way he runs the study, no wonder it
: shows such a large rate of success. He merely includes only the successful
: cases.
I have reservations about Vucelich's ethics; and I do think there will be
repercussions later on about his study. However, I'd like to mention, in
his defense, that there is something called "compassionate use" when it
comes to clinical trials of new drugs. Especially in
phase two and three clinical trials, if it can be demonstrated that a
patient who would not normally qualify for inclusion would otherwise die,
that patient can be given the drug on a compassionate use basis. The
results would *not* be included in the study, since it lacks the critical
aspect of the double blind. I think that Vucelich is putting Mrs.
Rubidoux (btw, Scott, I'd put money on this spelling) in this category.
However, I'm not certain if the same critera apply to new surgical
procedures as apply to drug testing.
Once again, disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the medical field. My
experience with "compassionate use" is purely anecdotal since I was
involved with someone who went through this process.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@netcom.com)
Nancy Dooley
>From: u62...@uicvm.uic.edu (J.J. Jimenez)
>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>As a medical student I can tell you that if I had barked an order like the
one >Carter did to that nurse I would have been the laughing stock of the
hospital. >Where I am at...and I suspect this is true of most teaching
hospitals...med >students are at the very bottom of the food chain. They
might be above the >student nurses but that doesn't mean that they will follow
med students >orders.
>--
>J.J. Jimenez
>University of Illinois at Chicago
>E-Mail: u62...@uicvm.uic.edu
Since you obviously believe what you just wrote above, I have a hard time
reconciling the above with your earlier statement: something like, "...much
to my disdain, I discovered some of the nurses evaluating me were only
LPN's...."
We all know LPN's don't have the academic training that RN's do; nevertheless,
being a (your own admission) "bottom of the food chain" med student certainly
doesn't put you in a position to "disdain" LPN's...I'm sure a lot of them know
a whole lot more than you do at this point, and have the intelligence
and skill to judge you in many areas of your training.
If you have this attitude now, I sudder to think how you'll treat your staff
when you're an M.D.
JMO, of course, and YMMV.
Nancy Dooley
"Which calls back the past, like the rich pumpkin pie?" J. G. Whittier
EYL...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu
In a former article we saw...
---begin former article---
From: woot...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (JWooten)
Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 05:56:59 GMT
In article <4cpmpk$f...@ionews.io.org> mat...@io.org (Mathew Englander) writes:
>We really don't have enough information yet to condemn Vucelich; but
>it looked to me that there was something fishy going on. Why was
>it only *after* the patient started to die that Vucelich decided
>not to include her? It seemed to me that if she had survived, she would
>have been included. If that is an accurate assessment of Vucelich's
>tactics, they really are academically unethical.
>Mathew Englander
Does anyone think that Carter's talk of Vucelich ("one of the best vascular
surgeons in the country") to Ruby before the consent and the Vucelich's
subsequent *non* performance of the operation will arise later? Seems to be
that would mean that Carter would've gotten the consent under false pretense
and he could perhaps be in trouble down the road...maybe creating a dilemma
for Benton if Vucelich fingers Carter
Then again, I'm carrying my idea a bit far ahead...
John
----
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how
"If, several years from now, you find me in an airport selling petunias and lo
---end former article---
The practice you describe is SOP in all teaching hospitals. One of the
reasons Henry Foster got pilloried for his inaccurate 'count' of the number
of abortions he had performed [which was in any case very small] was that
he was listed as the surgeon of record for many procedures which his
residents performed.
Vucelich is however a clearly unethical researcher -- to remove a
subject from the study when she goes south is cooking the data. [it
seems clear that she would have been in the sample if she had recovered]
And it seemed like a pretty clear bribe -- or cooptation attempt to get
Benton all the perks so that he would be a team player on this and
other fudges that may go on.
Cyndi Smith
> I have reservations about Vucelich's ethics; and I do think there will be
> repercussions later on about his study. However, I'd like to mention, in
> his defense, that there is something called "compassionate use" when it
> comes to clinical trials of new drugs. Especially in
> phase two and three clinical trials, if it can be demonstrated that a
> patient who would not normally qualify for inclusion would otherwise die,
> that patient can be given the drug on a compassionate use basis. The
> results would *not* be included in the study, since it lacks the critical
> aspect of the double blind. I think that Vucelich is putting Mrs.
> Rubidoux (btw, Scott, I'd put money on this spelling) in this category.
> However, I'm not certain if the same critera apply to new surgical
> procedures as apply to drug testing.
Yes, this IS done with come experimental treatments, but the difference is
that the "compassionate use" patients are so identified BEFORE the
treatment is performed, not AFTER the treatment has failed.
See the difference?
--
Cyndi Smith Computer Programmer
Department of Biomathematics M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX
Phone: 713/794-4938 Fax: 713/792-4262
J.J. Jimenez
>From: nancy-...@uiowa.edu (Nancy Dooley)
>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>In article <u62887.13...@uicvm.uic.edu> u62...@uicvm.uic.edu (J.J. Jimenez) writes:
>>From: u62...@uicvm.uic.edu (J.J. Jimenez)
>>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>Nancy Dooley
The bottom of the food chain comment really needs to be elaborated on. In
terms of functioning in the clinical setting I do take an unobtrusive role,
that is to say, I don't step on toes and I work as part of the team. Yes, you
are right when you say that LPNs have a wealth of knowledge that in certain
instances is superior to mine. However, when it comes to evaluation in an
academic setting I am afraid that they are simply not qualified to carry out
that task. It just so happens that the areas (on my evaluation form) that
these LPNs are evaluating me on are things such as "fund of knowledge" and
"presentation skills" is riduculous considering that I do not present my cases
to them and my interaction with them is such that they are not exposed to my
"fund of knowlege."
J.J. Jimenez
>From: mlac...@castles.com (Melanie A. L. LaClair)
>Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
>u62...@uicvm.uic.edu (J.J. Jimenez) wrote:
>>In article <4csf5j$5...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) writes:
>>>From: ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon)
>>>If Carter is beginning to treat nursing staff like his personal slaves,
>>>expressing temper whenever they question him, this is not a good sign.
>>>Well, I exaggerate. But I have to say that in my experience a doctor who
>>>is rude to the staff who serve the patients is also rude to the patients.
>>>And that I hate to see this happening to John.
>>As a medical student I can tell you that if I had barked an order like the one
>>Carter did to that nurse I would have been the laughing stock of the hospital.
>>Where I am at...and I suspect this is true of most teaching hospitals...med
>>students are at the very bottom of the food chain. They might be above the
>>student nurses but that doesn't mean that they will follow med students
>>orders.
>And, in point of fact, they *can't* follow a medical student's orders
>because they (the nurse) will then be medically/legally liable for
>anything that happens to the patient. A medical student can't give
>orders, and a nurse would certainly not follow them (and certainly not
>at a hospital portraying itself as Cook County! :-)
>Melanie.
In fact, in the state of Illinois, a medical order can only be given from one
licencsed health care provider to another licencsed health care provider.
This means that intern who have not passed USMLE Step 3 must also have orders
cosigned.
Melanie A. L. LaClair
Lori L. Karn
>Thank goodness! I thought I was going crazy...
>When Dr. V offered the research fellowship to Peter, I immediately said,
>"Bribe!" My boyfriend looked confused then realized what I meant and
>agreed. When Scott's summary and other subsequent comments failed to
>mention that aspect, I thought that maybe I missed something.
>I agree the "Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down", but still think
>that Peter will be in on it. Carter or Jeannie will talk to him and
>eventually he will see what is going on.
>--
>Cyndi Smith Computer Programmer
>Department of Biomathematics M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX
>Phone: 713/794-4938 Fax: 713/792-4262
I also noticed that Vucelich made a comment as to how Ruby's wife shouldn't be
included in the study as she was a high risk candidate to begin with (or
something to that effect). If this is the way he runs the study, no wonder it
shows such a large rate of success. He merely includes only the successful
cases.
Lori K.
EYL...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu
In a former article we saw...
---begin former article---
From: livel...@usa.pipeline.com
Subject: Re: ER: "Dead of Winter" Summary/Review
Date: 6 Jan 1996 15:01:57 GMT
On Jan 05, 1996 12:34:02 in article <Re: ER: "Dead of Winter"
Summary/Review>, 'c...@odin.mdacc.tmc.edu (Cyndi Smith)' wrote:
>I agree the "Dr. V. is going to have to be taken down", but still think
>that Peter will be in on it. Carter or Jeannie will talk to him and
>eventually he will see what is going on.
I don't believe that Dr. V is going to be taken down for his tactics. His
research findings with be published, his procedure accepted, lives saved,
and his ego will grow. No one will question his removal of Mrs. R. from
the study because she was indeed a poor candidate. He may be a cold
hearted egomaniac, but he is also pioneering a procedure that will save
lives. But Drs. Benton and Carter are going to do some soul searching
about how they want to conduct their careers. For the good of science and
people as a whole or for the individual patient? Deep philospohical
question that Benton, hot on the career track, would prefer to ignore (as
long as it isn't HIS mother involved). And Carter, who has the luxury of
not being as driven as Benton, is already upset by what has happened. But
we have seen Carter get side-tracked before. He lost some of his "people
first" approach during that phase when he was caught up in the competition
to do as many procedures as possible.
M.K.
---end former article---
'not a good candidate' -- what a cop out. Are all those future
patients going to be 'good candidates'? What will happen is that the
procedure, as so many are, will be adopted based on cooked data and
amazingly enough lots of people will die because it is not as safe or
as good as the research had indicated. It is not as if there are not
other tested procedures available -- to push a new one with phony data
is for the ego gratification of the doctor and not much else. The time
to exclude her from the study was before the surgery -- but they wanted
to 'beat the record' [how many of you want a resident racing through
your surgery 'ooops' to beat a record -- it was his first time doing
the procedure and his main concern is 'racing']