ER: "Whose Appy Now?" Summary/Review
Scott Hollifield
E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
Written by: Neal Baer
Directed by: Felix Enrique Alcala'
PLOT ONE: AGE OF CONSENT
A teenager named Jad Hueston with cystic fibrosis is brought
into the ER by his girlfriend Katy; it seems Jad and Katy had
planned to spend their last few months on Earth together in
Mexico, by way of Jad's mother's car, only Jad's CF caught up
with him en route. Katy lies to the docs and tells them Jad is
nineteen, but it turns out he's only seventeen. This isn't old
enough to authorize his own do-not-resuscitate order, which Jad
desperately desires; he tells Doug that he doesn't want to die
on a respirator. Jad's mother comes in and tells Doug to keep
Jad intubated if he starts crashing again. At first she brushes
off Doug's gentle attempt to persuade her to respect her son's
wishes ("He just wants to hurt me," she says), but after some
thought, reverses her decision and authorizes a DNR order for
Jad. When Jad's condition slides again, both mother and
girlfriend tearfully watch as Jad begins to stop breathing, but
at the last minute, Jad's mother changes her mind yet again and
insists Jad be intubated (with Katy's agreement). When Jad
realizes his wish to die is being contraverted despite Doug's
promise to cooperate, he angrily grabs at Doug, who orders the
boy paralyzed. "I'm sorry," Doug tells Jad, and repeats this
again when they're wheeling Jad out. Jad's response is a weakly
offered obscene gesture.
PLOT TWO: BALLS IN THE AIR
It's safe to say that Mark Greene is now comfortably integrated
into the dating lifestyle. He's got two girls on the line:
Heather Morgan, the water polo player he met last week, and
Polly McKenzie, a more "spiritual" companion who favors herbal
remedies. Despite Doug's warning (from first-hand experience)
that those who play with fire get burned, Mark acquires yet
another ball to juggle when hospital psych attending Nina
Pomerantz asks him out. Mark, who's already had to lie to Polly
about being sick to keep a date with Heather, hastily schedules
Nina for drinks prior to his Bulls game with Heather. This
delicate balancing act doesn't last long, however, when all
three women show up in the ER at the same time, and when Nina
and Polly happen to recognize each other as old friends.
Disgusted at the deception, all three women promptly desert Mark,
although Nina later offers a tentative "maybe" in response to
a lunch request from him. Stuck with dinner reservations, Mark
makes a stab at asking Chuny out, who tells him that she'll
"have to check [her] calendar". Mark does end up eating out,
with his friend Doug Ross. Stuck with having to decide what
to do after dinner, the two men drink a toast to the idea of
another bottle of champagne.
PLOT THREE: PISTOL-PACKIN' MAGGIE
Eager to begin his rotation with Dr. Hicks' group, Carter has to
get Benton to sign an evaluation of his prior stint, which
Benton reluctantly does, his body and his mind both being
occupied elsewhere (see PLOT FOUR). Carter's first blue team
case ends up becoming a rivalry between him and Maggie Doyle,
but the two end up making an excellent team, particularly when
Maggie is able to warn Carter away from a special razor-edged
bullet lodged in a potential AIDS carrier, due to her knowledge
of firearms. Hicks invites the both of them to follow their GSW
victim upstairs, but the patient is given to another surgeon
when Benton is admitted into the OR for his appendectomy. "Oh,
there is a God," breathes Carter when he sees Benton on the
table. Hicks allows some degree of merriment for this special
occasion, with Shirley taking commemorative snapshots and Carter
having "Ride of the Valkries" and "Mack the Knife" played on the
OR speakers. Carter is the first to greet Benton when he
emerges from anesthesia, and jokingly interprets Benton's
delirious "I never gave the kid a chance" to mean himself. The
two share a brief chuckle over this in-joke. Afterward, Carter
finds Maggie, whose cameo in surgery has inspired her to
practice the one-handed suture move on an eggplant, and possibly
to sign up for a surgical elective. When Carter asks her out,
she invites him, instead, to come along with her for some
shooting practice. At the range, Maggie happens to spy her
ex-girlfriend, Amy Elliot, with whom she just broke up with
three months ago. Amy is a cop, and "jealous as hell," whispers
Maggie; the revelation has an adverse affect on Carter's
shooting aim.
PLOT FOUR: APPY TRAILS
Shortly before work, Peter gets a visit at home from his sister
Jackie, who's come to see him about Carla. "How could you be
so stupid?" Jackie asks, and inquires how he's going to deal
with this situation. "By being a father to your child?"
Peter's mumbled reply is, "I'm gonna handle it," although he
admits, "I don't know how." He's distracted by a soreness
from the area of his appendix, and, caught giving himself an
ultrasound by Kerry, is sent up to the OR to have it taken
out. Carter is elated, of course, to be the one responsible
for removing an organ from Peter's body (see PLOT THREE).
When Peter surfaces from the anesthetic, he hallucinates
Dr. Hicks saying, "I'm pregnant," followed by Kerry and
Carter saying the same thing. In his delirium, he
mutters, "I sure screwed up... I'm sorry, Carla... I never gave
the kid a chance."
PLOT FIVE: THE SECRET SHARER
Several recent ER patients have come down with staphlyococcus,
which is undoubtedly being propogated by someone who works
there, since it's spread by one not washing their hands after
using the bathroom. Greg Fischer is assigned to track down the
unhygenic culprit, and he requests Jeanie's assistance.
Together, the two deduce that the bacteria spreader is Jerry,
who responds to their admonition about washing his hands in the
bathroom with a puzzled, "What, every time?" Emboldened by
their cooperation, Greg asks Jeanie out again, but she
declines. Her attitude changes, though, after giving stitches
to a man with AIDS whom she treated a year ago. The man
expresses intense relief at the new life that the HIV cocktail
treatment has given him, saying, "I haven't felt this good in a
long time." Afterward, Jeanie accepts Greg's dinner offer, and
following dinner, Greg kisses her, which causes her to flinch.
"I'm afraid of liking you too much," she murmurs. "Aren't you
afraid?" His response is another gentle kiss.
MISCELLANEOUS THREADS:
"Haleh's playing nurse manager while Carol's away," is Jerry's
assessment of the situation in nursing, and while that may be a
trifle blunt, the truth is that Haleh isn't having an easy time
at filling Carol's shoes. For one thing, she filled out some
requisition orders incorrectly, and ends up having to sign for a
dozen gross, instead of a dozen inidividual units, of
everything. When Carol briefly pops in to pick up her paycheck,
all the nurses, Haleh included, are glad to see her, and want to
know when she'll return, but Carol's hearing is still two weeks
away. The other nurses' paychecks don't arrive, however,
thanks to Haleh forgetting about them and leaving their timecards
in her purse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, with all the couples being put together in this
episode, you'd almost think that Valentine's Day was around the
corner.
Last week, I defended Mark Greene from complaints that
he's becoming too Doug-like; now, I may have to consider
rescinding my position. He juggles no less than four woman this
week, counting ex Chuny, and this was a pretty cute storyline
at showing how Mark still has a few things to learn about the
single guy life, even if the "climax" threatened to veer into
"Three's Company" contrivance. The story also reminded me that
we saw a more emotionally-charged version of this same situation
with Carter, a few weeks ago in Samantha Corbin's "Homeless
For The Holidays" script. He does seem more natural in asking
advice from Doug now, though, than he did earlier this season
when pining for Susan; Doug's forte after all is the scheduling
of multiple women. Like a juggler with too many balls in the
air, though, Mark loses them all by the end of the episode, and
is "stuck" with his best friend Doug as a dinner date, which
I thought was terrific, speaking as someone who generally likes
spending more time with friends than with girlfriends. (The
dinner "date" with Doug also came across as an interesting
gender-bending counter-image as it immediately followed the
revelation about Maggie Doyle's ex-girlfriend.) I see that
the writers have left open the path for Mark to pursue Jami
Gertz's character, Nina Pomerantz, which I feel is sort of a
pity, in a way. Not only am I typically opposed to the
arbitrary "pairing up" of characters, but having Mark go
full-tilt in another serious relationship would seem wrong,
somehow, after all this swinging stuff. Best give it some
time -- and expand the character of Nina a little while we're
at it. It'd be nice to finally have a regular psych doctor on
the show (it's only been, what, two years since Div Cvetic
walked off the show?), but I want to know more about her than
the fact that she too is a single parent.
Doug's story this week was another ethics heart-churner,
and for some reason, although Jad Heuston's story felt like a
condensed version of the multi-episode Charlie arc, it felt
more successful to me. I think this is because that even though
Doug "betrayed" Charlie, he really did do what was best for her,
and there was no opposing force standing in his way. With Jad,
though, the morality was a bit muddier, and I really felt for
Doug in that last scene when Jad bitterly flips him the bird.
I feel like Jad's mother (and his girlfriend, towards the end)
was being selfish in the way that the loved ones of terminal
patients sometimes are, and yet, for someone as compassionate
as Doug, who's even given his word to this kid, it must be terribly
hard to refuse the wish of someone who's insistence is, after
all, in favor of life's continuance. I liked this story because
it touched on the emotional issues, without getting bogged down
in the political semantics, of the arguments over terminally
ill patients, and ended on what couldn't possibly be a "happy"
ending, whatever the resolution.
This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
which somehow I suspect was more therapeutic for Carter than it
was for Benton. It doesn't seem right to say that Carter
should be able to easily work through some of his resentment
towards Benton through this simple, played-for-laughs situation,
but it actually felt exactly right. The scene with the two
characters sharing a chuckle over the notion of Peter
deliriously "apologizing" to Carter was quite funny, and one of
the best bonding moments these two men have shared, which is
saying something considering the number of superlative scenes
they've been given together recently. As for the other half of
Carter's part of the story -- his nascent bond with Maggie Doyle
-- what happens next at this point rests on a fact I don't know,
namely whether the writers' decision to color Maggie's
sexuality goes in the direction of lesbianism or bisexuality.
I guess I instinctively suspect the latter, given the whole
pairing-up thing, but even if so, I'm glad if only that Maggie
is the show's first major non-heterosexual character (that we
know of). That being said, my judgement is pending forthcoming
developments.
Peter reacts to news of his girlfriend's pregnancy by
coming down with appendicitis. Boy, talk about guilt pains.
Although he spent most of this episode under the gas, Peter
did have two significant scenes this week, one with Carter
(already mentioned) and one with his sister Jackie. I know
Khandi Alexander is way busy with "Newsradio", but she can't
appear on this show enough for me; one of the highlights of
last season was Jackie scolding her brother for "messin' with
a married woman" (Jeanie). Their conversation here alluded to
the fact that Peter hasn't really decided what to do about
Carla and her baby. I hope that he didn't suddenly lose his
misgivings along with his appendix; a simple operation shouldn't
cure his feelings, and there should be much more for him to
dwell upon as this story continues.
I'm glad that Jeanie is finally letting go of her
fears, at least slightly, and opening herself up to a relationship
with Greg Fischer. Assuming what we saw was a genuine
denoument, this is the second major hurdle she's had to overcome
this season, so I have no idea what's up for Jeanie next. I
do know that Jeanie is possibly the best-realized, most
well-developed character of the third season, and I'm looking to
seeing how she faces challenges to come. Her and Greg's
story this week -- the rampaging "staph" epidemic -- was basically
another excuse to include Greg on the show, but it was kind of
amusing, particularly once I figured out for myself who was
causing it by asking myself, "Who is least likely to wash their
hands after using the bathroom?"
Some assorted comments:
-Haleh receives karmic retribution as a result of her
snide attitude of recent weeks, by getting in over her
head while filling Carol's shoes. This thread was
cute and successful in its goal; now I'm ready to give
Haleh a break and have Carol come back.
-Few lines of the week, but many humorous moments; my
favorite was Doug walking in with a limp and a crutch,
which Kerry automatically assumes is directed at her:
"That's not funny, Doug." This was especially cutting
for those of us who remember Doug actually mocking
Kerry's limp early last season, to Kerry's humiliation.
-I know I keep reusing the word "cute", but there were
a couple of, yes, "cute" Wendy Goldman moments.
Her line about having National Guard duty was funny,
but better was the subtle visual gag of Vanessa
Marquez giving a sweet smile for her mug shot, which
quickly dissolved into a "I feel kinda sick" expression.
:-) Her conversation with Chuny, over Mark Greene's
comparative attributes, was also a scream, at least the
bits I was able to catch from my rusty high school
Spanish. (Anyone who has a full translation of their
exchange, feel free to post it on Usenet -- don't send
it to me via e-mail.)
-I'm going to give Neal Baer benefit of the doubt
regarding Carter's repetition of the line, "There is
a God!", from the show's first season finale when
Carter got to give Benton a student evaluation.
Carter doesn't get many of these moments, after all,
and it does sound like something he'd say more than
once. :-)
-I didn't feel much identification with Mark at all this
week, particularly when he tried to make lemonade out
of his situation by asking Chuny out -- knowing that
she knew about his other prospects "busting" him.
Gee, I'll bet that made her feel good to place
*fourth* in the day's rankings.
-Like I said, not too many quotable Lines of the Week
this time around -- although I'm willing to go for
Chuny's "Men are so stupid." It's true sometimes, I
admit.
-Next week: The long-awaited Ewan McGregor episode, which
I'm afraid might take place almost entirely away from the
ER.
---
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
Testy
Scott Hollifield wrote:
> Mark does end up eating out,
> with his friend Doug Ross. Stuck with having to decide what
> to do after dinner, the two men drink a toast to the idea of
> another bottle of champagne.
I assume Mark and Doug went to the restaurant where Mark had made the
dinner reservations with Heather. What time were they eating? He was
supposed to have drinks with Nina at 6, then meet Heather at the Bulls
game, which would be at 7:30. So I figure dinner wasn't until after the
game, at 10:30 or later, finishing up close to midnight. So why are Mark
and Doug trying to figure out what to do next? Shouldn't they be getting
to sleep? Do these guys still manage to perform their ER duties on
3-4 hours of sleep a night, even when they don't have to?
Testy
Maria Ana Montalvo
In article <32faca4c...@news.cris.com>,
Scott Hollifield <sco...@cris.com> wrote:
>E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
>Written by: Neal Baer
>Directed by: Felix Enrique Alcala'
> a couple of, yes, "cute" Wendy Goldman moments.
> Her line about having National Guard duty was funny,
> but better was the subtle visual gag of Vanessa
> Marquez giving a sweet smile for her mug shot, which
> quickly dissolved into a "I feel kinda sick" expression.
> :-) Her conversation with Chuny, over Mark Greene's
> comparative attributes, was also a scream, at least the
> bits I was able to catch from my rusty high school
> Spanish. (Anyone who has a full translation of their
> exchange, feel free to post it on Usenet -- don't send
> it to me via e-mail.)
I didn't record it, so can't give you the whole thing, but the last part
of it was approximately "Is it true what they say about the bald ones?" "Yes,
sex, sex, sex, it's all they can think about."
Maria
Jonathan Roberts
I'd considered a few sub-plot titles myself:
GREENE BEHAVING BADLY
TYPHOID JERRY
CHIEF OF STAPH
Probably just as well I don't write the summary/reviews! <g>
--
Best,
Jon
jonathan roberts \ in days somehow distracted
guitar:synth:notes \ in nights of troubled sleep
the region of where \ these secrets long suppressed emerge
nart...@ix.netcom.com \ too difficult to keep
Ian J. Ball
In article <32faca4c...@news.cris.com>, sco...@cris.com (Scott
Hollifield) wrote:
> E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
> Written by: Neal Baer
> Directed by: Felix Enrique Alcala'
>
> Doug's story this week was another ethics heart-churner,
> and for some reason, although Jad Heuston's story felt like a
> condensed version of the multi-episode Charlie arc, it felt
> more successful to me.
More to the point, can we all just admit now that George Clooney is *God*?!
I'm actually in the camp that thinks that Clooney is a better actor than
Edwards, and he proves it again this week with another subtle, yet
stellar, performance.
> This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
> with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
> opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
> which somehow I suspect was more therapeutic for Carter than it
> was for Benton.
*All* the "Carter capers" this week were funny. First the evaluation thing
with Benton ("Satisfactory work"! ;> ), then the competition with Doyle,
then the "appy", and then finally the disconcerting image of Carter on a
gun range.
It all worked.
> Some assorted comments:
>
> -Haleh receives karmic retribution as a result of her
> snide attitude of recent weeks, by getting in over her
> head while filling Carol's shoes. This thread was
> cute and successful in its goal; now I'm ready to give
> Haleh a break and have Carol come back.
Eh, it's still not enough for my tastes. Haleh's been acting like a real
jerk these past weeks, and I still haven't heard any expression of
remorse.
> -Next week: The long-awaited Ewan McGregor episode, which
> I'm afraid might take place almost entirely away from the
> ER.
Me too. An epiosde out of the E.R. doesn't seem like much of an "ER" to me!
Boy, is "ER" really clickin' this season, or what? ;> Think Sherry
Stringfield's having any regrets yet?... :o
P.S. I'm with you Scott: I hope they do much more with Jamie Gertz than to
just have her be Greene's love interest. Gertz is capable of a lot more,
and I hope she translates this gig into a more permanent "ER" slot.
--
Ian J. Ball | Want to get the rec.arts.tv FAQ, or my other TV
Grad Student | episode guides? Try:
IJB...@aol.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/IJBall.html
i...@ucla.edu | ftp://members.aol.com/IJBall3/FTP/
Denise L. Voskuil
In article <32FB41...@MIT.EDU>, ecc...@MIT.EDU says...
>Scott Hollifield wrote:
>> Mark does end up eating out,
>> with his friend Doug Ross. Stuck with having to decide what
>> to do after dinner, the two men drink a toast to the idea of
>> another bottle of champagne.
>I assume Mark and Doug went to the restaurant where Mark had made the
>dinner reservations with Heather. What time were they eating? He was
>supposed to have drinks with Nina at 6, then meet Heather at the Bulls
>game, which would be at 7:30. So I figure dinner wasn't until after the
>game, at 10:30 or later, finishing up close to midnight. So why are Mark
>and Doug trying to figure out what to do next? Shouldn't they be getting
>to sleep? Do these guys still manage to perform their ER duties on
>3-4 hours of sleep a night, even when they don't have to?
Mark is an attending, and Doug is a fellow. As a generalization, they would
not usually work quite as long hours as residents do.
- Denise
--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: uic.edu/mcs.com/eden.com
**Please remove the _delete_ in my address to reply via E-mail;
I'm sick of spammers grabbing my address off of Usenet.**
I'm too low in the hierarchy here to officially even
*have* an opinion.
Nancy Dooley
>> cute and successful in its goal; now I'm ready to give
>> Haleh a break and have Carol come back.
>
>jerk these past weeks, and I still haven't heard any expression of
>remorse.
Me, neither. Not only is there no remorse (she still seems to think
she knows it all), she wasn't "stand-up" enough to admit she made the
ordering mistake.
Nancy.
"Get your facts first, and then you can
distort 'em as much as you please." (Samuel Clemens)
David P. Hagan
Ian J. Ball (IJB...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <32faca4c...@news.cris.com>, sco...@cris.com (Scott
: Hollifield) wrote:
: > E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
: > Written by: Neal Baer
: > Directed by: Felix Enrique Alcala'
: More to the point, can we all just admit now that George Clooney is *God*?!
: I'm actually in the camp that thinks that Clooney is a better actor than
: Edwards, and he proves it again this week with another subtle, yet
: stellar, performance.
He has had some great acting recently, but chalk alot of that up to the
writers who are giving his character some new found depth.
Granted Clooney is acting alot better than Edwards was acting when the
Susan leaving thing was going on. Of course some of Edwards best acting
was the movie Downtown :)
: > This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
: > with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
: > opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
: > which somehow I suspect was more therapeutic for Carter than it
: > was for Benton.
: *All* the "Carter capers" this week were funny. First the evaluation thing
: with Benton ("Satisfactory work"! ;> ), then the competition with Doyle,
: then the "appy", and then finally the disconcerting image of Carter on a
: gun range.
Carter just had an evil grin on his face when he saw that it was Benton,
not only a way to get revenge on Benton, but also prove how great a
surgeon he is to his former mentor.
One of my favorite moments was when Doyle and Carter were arguing in the
beginning about who should put the chest tube in. Carter said something
like, "I have more experience right Dr. Benton" and Benton said "Ask Dr.
..." dammit, I'm drawing a blank here, who is Carter's new rotation with,
I can't remember her name, Hicks I think.
The two of them were just being complete jerks with each other. Is this
just some tension left over from Gant's suicide or what.
Michelle Morrison
David P. Hagan wrote:
>
> Ian J. Ball (IJB...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <32faca4c...@news.cris.com>, sco...@cris.com (Scott
> : Hollifield) wrote:
>
> : > Written by: Neal Baer
> : > Directed by: Felix Enrique Alcala'
>
>
> : I'm actually in the camp that thinks that Clooney is a better actor than
> : Edwards, and he proves it again this week with another subtle, yet
> : stellar, performance.
> He has had some great acting recently, but chalk alot of that up to the
> writers who are giving his character some new found depth.
> Granted Clooney is acting alot better than Edwards was acting when the
> Susan leaving thing was going on. Of course some of Edwards best acting
> was the movie Downtown :)
Did you forget about Top Gun? I think that was Edwards' best movie ever, and although
he's my fave actor, I think we saw a LITTLE too much of him this episode (i'm talking
shower scene here).
Michelle
Ken Stitzel
Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
: Gee, with all the couples being put together in this
: episode, you'd almost think that Valentine's Day was around the
: corner.
Yah. Fortunately the writers seemed to play it for a laugh, to
which end they were quite successful, IMHO.
Re Mark Greene:
: He juggles no less than four woman this
: week, counting ex Chuny, and this was a pretty cute storyline
: ...even if the "climax" threatened to veer into
: "Three's Company" contrivance.
They did tread a thin line here, but it seemed to work well
enough. I found this whole plot thread interesting because it
comes right out of one of the essays in Michael Crichton's
"Travels". He is divorced, living in LA, making lots of money
from the movies, and going out with a lot of women. Instead of
being honest and saying, "I'm seeing other people right now," he
lies and gets himself in needless stupid trouble--which is
funny because it's no less than he--or Mark Greene--deserves.
: I thought was terrific, speaking as someone who generally likes
: spending more time with friends than with girlfriends.
You just haven't met the right girl--or don't know you have. ;-)
: [Mark's] "date" with Doug also came across as an interesting
: gender-bending counter-image as it immediately followed the
: revelation about Maggie Doyle's ex-girlfriend.
Hadn't noticed, but you're right. Good call.
: the writers have left open the path for Mark to pursue Jami
: Gertz's character, Nina Pomerantz, which I feel is sort of a
: pity...
At least she seems smart enough to not let Mark run any scams
or bring a lot of emotional baggage into a relationship. It
might work if the writers don't rush it. The bit with her
giving Mark the rubber band was cute.
: Doug's story this week was another ethics heart-churner,
This one is a heartbreaker because Doug really doesn't have a
choice. He risks a lawsuit and major trouble for the hospital
if he does the right thing. He can choose to advocate for the
kid to his mom, but she has the final legal say. He is condemned
to more suffering--although as a parent, I can understand her being
unable to let go. It would take enormous strength of will and heart
to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
You can also understand the girlfriend lacking the maturity and
strength to follow through.
Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
: This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
: with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
: opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
Also showed a lot more of Hicks and her personality. Looks like
Carter has found a good home--and a more fun one--on the blue team.
: The scene with [Benton and Carter] sharing a chuckle over
: the notion of Peter deliriously "apologizing" to Carter was
: quite funny,
Of course, Benton's ramble, "...I never gave the kid a chance..."
remains cryptic. Does he mean Gant or his own unborn kid?
: Carter's part of the story -- his nascent bond with Maggie Doyle
It was nice how she looked so sly when she invited Carter out
to shoot. I had a hunch it would be guns, after the bullet
incident and all her cop background. The revelation was a nice
surprise in some ways, given the episodes flirtation with
couple cliches in Mark's storyline. It's almost like she
knew she would shock him.
: I'm glad that Jeanie is finally letting go of her
: fears, at least slightly, and opening herself up to a relationship
: with Greg Fischer.
I know lots of people have been pulling for this character to
open up. But her conversation with the patient revealed what it
was easy to forget: she was steeling herself to face an agonizing
death and is still a hazard to anyone who becomes physically intimate
with her. (Though who should know better than Greg, who is still
willing?) A moving bit, that.
: -Next week: The long-awaited Ewan McGregor episode, which
: I'm afraid might take place almost entirely away from the
: ER.
Looks like we're in for another focus-on-a-single-character-in-
crisis episode.
--
Ken Stitzel (k...@fc.hp.com)
Learning Products Engineer (tech writer with functional enhancements)
Hewlett-Packard Company (a pretty cool company to work for)
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
(Opinions stated herein are provided without warranty and are not
representative of official or unofficial HP policy on yet another
nice ER summary by Scott Hollyfield ;-)
Ceon Ramon
In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
No, it wasn't Susan Sarandon, although I can see where you might find a
faint resemblance. (The other two actresses in the film were Cher and
Michelle Pfeiffer.)
>: This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
>: with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
>: opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
>
>Also showed a lot more of Hicks and her personality. Looks like
>Carter has found a good home--and a more fun one--on the blue team.
I wonder if he'll stay there. He vacillates a lot where Benton is
concerned.
>: The scene with [Benton and Carter] sharing a chuckle over
>: the notion of Peter deliriously "apologizing" to Carter was
>: quite funny,
>
>Of course, Benton's ramble, "...I never gave the kid a chance..."
>remains cryptic. Does he mean Gant or his own unborn kid?
It never occurred to me that he meant anyone but Gant. He hasn't had a
chance to not give a chance :-) to the baby, if there's actually going to
be a baby.
>: I'm glad that Jeanie is finally letting go of her
>: fears, at least slightly, and opening herself up to a relationship
>: with Greg Fischer.
>
>I know lots of people have been pulling for this character to
>open up. But her conversation with the patient revealed what it
>was easy to forget: she was steeling herself to face an agonizing
>death and is still a hazard to anyone who becomes physically intimate
>with her. (Though who should know better than Greg, who is still
>willing?) A moving bit, that.
Yes, that was beautifully done. Gloria Reuben's vulnerability, that
combination of fear and pain and longing when she murmured, "It's just...
that it's been so long since anyone did that," was heart-breaking. Jeanie
Boulet is a young woman, and we've seen her over many episodes steeling
herself to the idea that she can never again allow herself to be
touched or kissed or held.
--Barbara
John Dybala
: > ER.
: Me too. An epiosde out of the E.R. doesn't seem like much of an "ER" to me!
H&HW was almost all out of the ER, though ...
--
John J. Dybala, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
"I'm a little teapot, short and stout, here is my handle, here
is my other handle ... wait a minute, I'm a little sugar bowl."
Spammers: don't send me unsolicited e-mail or you'll be sorry.
Ron Bean
>It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician? Physically he should
be an adult by that age, even though society won't treat him like one for
another 8-10 years...
Ron Bean
>PLOT FOUR: APPY TRAILS
>
>He's distracted by a soreness
>from the area of his appendix, and, caught giving himself an
>ultrasound by Kerry, is sent up to the OR to have it taken
>out.
I was impressed by the way Kerry Weaver handled this. She could have
reamed him out for being so stupid, but she was very matter-of-fact about
it (she didn't even seem surprised). And to his credit, he didn't resist
once he knew he had been found out.
Hag
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> No, it wasn't Susan Sarandon, although I can see where you might find a
> faint resemblance. (The other two actresses in the film were Cher and
> Michelle Pfeiffer.)
>
Actually she was in "Withches of Eastwick". She was the woman who lost
her mind and was hit over the head with a fire poker after that
"incredible" cherry spewing scene.
Jo
Karl Bojahra
yes he wuld be seeing a pediatrician still because of his cf. pediatrician would have a
bit more expertise than a gp since cf people make it past there mid 20's if that.
Kate the Short
In article <5dgckb$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
>
>faint resemblance. (The other two actresses in the film were Cher and
>Michelle Pfeiffer.)
No, not them... remember when there's a party, and he and the witches
are eating cherries, and this other woman at the fancy party starts
barfing up cherry pits? And then she trips on marbles or cherry pits or
something, and breaks her leg and is just on the floor? I think *that*
is who Scott was mentioning...
>>: This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
>>: with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
>>: opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
>>
>>Also showed a lot more of Hicks and her personality. Looks like
>>Carter has found a good home--and a more fun one--on the blue team.
>
>I wonder if he'll stay there. He vacillates a lot where Benton is
>concerned.
True. But I think it'll be good for Carter to get out on his own, and
do things away from Benton for once. HE does need a bit broader base of
experience.
>>: The scene with [Benton and Carter] sharing a chuckle over
>>: the notion of Peter deliriously "apologizing" to Carter was
>>: quite funny,
>>
>>Of course, Benton's ramble, "...I never gave the kid a chance..."
>>remains cryptic. Does he mean Gant or his own unborn kid?
>
>It never occurred to me that he meant anyone but Gant. He hasn't had a
>chance to not give a chance :-) to the baby, if there's actually going to
>be a baby.
Yes, but he mentioned Carla's name about the same time. Maybe he
thought that he'd never see her or the kid again because he screwed up?
>>: I'm glad that Jeanie is finally letting go of her
>>: fears, at least slightly, and opening herself up to a relationship
>>
>>I know lots of people have been pulling for this character to
>
>Yes, that was beautifully done. Gloria Reuben's vulnerability, that
>combination of fear and pain and longing when she murmured, "It's just...
>that it's been so long since anyone did that," was heart-breaking. Jeanie
>Boulet is a young woman, and we've seen her over many episodes steeling
>herself to the idea that she can never again allow herself to be
>touched or kissed or held.
True. I was almost crying (wow, on ER. never see that happen.). It
was really touching, and very sweet.
kate.
| Kate the Short -(ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu)- at the U of Chicago |
| Visit my web page! (http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel/) |
| Keeper of: RAC.MX Read Before Posting and Where Can I Find It? FAQs |
| Patron Saint of rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks, & Really Short Person |
sarah
rb...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Bean) wrote:
>
>>It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>>to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>
>The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
>years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>
>Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician?
I was. And I kept seeing her after I turned eighteen.
sarah
sarah
Jonathan Roberts <nart...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'd considered a few sub-plot titles myself:
>
> GREENE BEHAVING BADLY
>
> TYPHOID JERRY
>
> CHIEF OF STAPH
>
>Probably just as well I don't write the summary/reviews! <g>
No these are good, very good.
sarah
Denise L. Voskuil
On 8 Feb 1997 05:28:10 GMT, sarah <sara...@juno.com> wrote:
>rb...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Bean) wrote:
>>someone said:
>>>It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>>>to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>>The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
>>years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>>Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician?
>I was. And I kept seeing her after I turned eighteen.
I work in Pediatric Cardiology at the Univ. of IL - Chicago Medical
Center, and we have many patients who are teenagers and young adults,
and even some patients in their 30s and 40s! They still have a
pediatric ailment (congenital heart defect), after all, and are
comfortable with their doctor's knowledge of their condition. My
guess is that since this patient had CF, he's been with this
pediatrician for a while, and that doctor _knows_ this teen's
condition, mental/emotional health, and so on. I see no reason why he
wouldn't still be going to that doctor (especially if the doc
specialized in, say, pediatric pulmonology).
- Denise
(doesn't speak for UIC, just works for them)
--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: mcs.com/eden.com/uic.edu
*Remove the "NO_ADS" in my E-mail address to reply - I'm sick of
spammers getting my address off of Usenet.*
http://www.mcs.net/~dvoskuil/
"In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is
chosen by others." - Andre' Maurois
BamBam
On 7 Feb 1997, Ceon Ramon wrote:
> In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
> >remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
> >witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
>
> No, it wasn't Susan Sarandon, although I can see where you might find a
I can't remember her name right now, but she played the target of the
witches' wrath (she was the woman that kept having "accidents", and
ralphing cherries. Oops--shoulda said "spoiler"...)
> >: The scene with [Benton and Carter] sharing a chuckle over
> >: the notion of Peter deliriously "apologizing" to Carter was
> >: quite funny,
> >
> >Of course, Benton's ramble, "...I never gave the kid a chance..."
> >remains cryptic. Does he mean Gant or his own unborn kid?
>
> It never occurred to me that he meant anyone but Gant. He hasn't had a
> chance to not give a chance :-) to the baby, if there's actually going to
> be a baby.
I'm with you, Barbara. In fact, the order in which he mumbled it made me
think that he was talking about both Gant ("...never gave the kid a
chance...") and Carla ("I'm sorry Carla").
> Yes, that was beautifully done. Gloria Reuben's vulnerability, that
> combination of fear and pain and longing when she murmured, "It's just...
> that it's been so long since anyone did that," was heart-breaking. Jeanie
> Boulet is a young woman, and we've seen her over many episodes steeling
> herself to the idea that she can never again allow herself to be
> touched or kissed or held.
Again, I agree with you in that that was a touching scene for me. But I
also have a sense of foreshadowing with this "cocktail" business, that
this will be the writers' Easy Way Out of having to deal with the possible
impending death of what may turn out to be a major character down the
road. What better way to avoid the appearance of coming up with a
"miracle cure" than to show that it cured someone else in the past? I
guess we'll see somewhere down the line.
"No change of circumstances can repair a defect of the character" -Emerson
Rose "BamBam" Cooper /~\
Sgt. At Arms/Web Moderator, /','\
Ebony Queens Motorcycle Club /','`'\
DoD #EQUEEN email: BAM...@MANETHEREN.CL.MSU.EDU /',',','/`,
http://mlss15.cl.msu.edu/~bambam/eqmc/eqmc.html `~-._'c /
http://mlss15.cl.msu.edu/~bambam/jupiter/rott.html `\ ( dski
http://mlss15.cl.msu.edu/~bambam/customerpower/wwwboard.html /====\
Marc Dashevsky
In article <5dgckb$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
>
>No, it wasn't Susan Sarandon, although I can see where you might find a
>Michelle Pfeiffer.)
I thought it was Veronica Cartwright, who played a young teen in THE BIRDS,
and later was in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and ALIEN. She had some
prominent guest appearances on L. A. LAW as well.
Marc
Laurie Cubbison
Having his doctor be a pediatrician wouldn't be so unusual for several
reasons.
1. with a disease like cystic fibrosis, one would want a doctor who was
completely familiar with the patient's medical history. the pediatrician
would likely have treated Jad all his life.
2. it's symbolic of his mother's treatment of him as a child that he
would still be seeing a pediatrician. to change doctors would be symbolic
of adulthood, and she wouldn't be able to handle that.
I have to wonder if he hasn't already fought the same battle with his
mother and the pediatrician as the one he is fighting in the ER and that
was his reason for running away.
laurie
In article <5dgre1$l...@earth.alpha.net>,
Ron Bean <rb...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>>to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>
>The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
>years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>
Rose Marie Holt
> E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
> occupied elsewhere (see PLOT FOUR). Carter's first blue team
> case ends up becoming a rivalry between him and Maggie Doyle,
Blue team is his old team. Now he is on the red team. I think.
> Maggie's
> sexuality goes in the direction of lesbianism or bisexuality.
> I guess I instinctively suspect the latter, given the whole
> pairing-up thing
As soon as Carter begins respecting a woman doctor or student he starts
dating her - he even asked Susan out. I think it is about time he
learned how to relate to women doctors without dating them. Doyle is just
the one to give him that lesson, whether gay or not - in fact,
theoretically she could be hetero, but not interested in Carter and may
have said what she said to mess with his mind a little and keep their
relationship professional. Whatever. Personally, I'd prefer her gay, to
keep the show "looking like America"
Marlene Blanshay
> >I know lots of people have been pulling for this character to
> >was easy to forget: she was steeling herself to face an agonizing
> >death and is still a hazard to anyone who becomes physically intimate
> >with her. (Though who should know better than Greg, who is still
> >willing?) A moving bit, that.
>
> combination of fear and pain and longing when she murmured, "It's just...
> that it's been so long since anyone did that," was heart-breaking. Jeanie
> Boulet is a young woman, and we've seen her over many episodes steeling
> herself to the idea that she can never again allow herself to be
> touched or kissed or held.
>
mushy myself. I was so happy for poor Jeannie. Finally she realized she
deserves some happiness after her jerk husband and Benton.I was so pissed
at Fisher for being mean to her!
Marlene Blanshay
Just a few days ago I discovered I have to have surgery, scheduled for
March, and since I've never had any kind of major surgery in my life, I'm a
little bit anxious about it even though it's not serious. My friend said,
"Gee, you'd better not watch ER between now and then!" But of course I
watched,and during the scene with Dr Benton's operation, I thought, "GREAT!
That's what they're going to do while I'm under anasthesia? maybe I should
ask for an epidural so I can stay awake and watch!" It was really
hilarious.
So that night I had a dream about Dr Benton, but I don't remember it at
all.I was expecting that his stomach pain would be an ulcer. IF there's
anyone who would be fertile ground for a nice big ulcer it would be Benton,
the ideal repressed acid factory. I was surprised when it turned out to be
his appendix!
mte...@ibm.net
In <5dgckb$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) writes:
>In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
Veronica Cartwright was the mom.
She came to an untimely end in the first "Alien" movie as I recall
(heh...how could anyone forget THAT movie).
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Terka - Galveston, Texas - mte...@ibm.net
PGP PUBLIC KEY on: public-k...@pgp.ai.mit.edu,
COMMAND: GET werewolf in message body
PGP FINGERPRINT:
02 54 67 39 AE 86 2E 63 C4 83 EF 3F F1 6D 96 BB
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollifield
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 14:13:33 -0400, blan...@vir.com (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:
>My sister told me she was bawling at the end! I have to admit I was a bit
>mushy myself. I was so happy for poor Jeannie. Finally she realized she
>deserves some happiness after her jerk husband and Benton.I was so pissed
>at Fisher for being mean to her!
When was Fischer "mean" to her?
---
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
Scott Hollifield
On 8 Feb 1997 18:37:14 GMT, rmh...@micron.net (Rose Marie Holt) wrote:
>In article <32faca4c...@news.cris.com>, sco...@cris.com (Scott
>Hollifield) wrote:
>> occupied elsewhere (see PLOT FOUR). Carter's first blue team
>> case ends up becoming a rivalry between him and Maggie Doyle,
>
>Blue team is his old team. Now he is on the red team. I think.
Oops, you're absolutely correct. My mistake.
Don Weinman
Scott, do you have any thoughts on this one? My daughter is a recent graduate of
nursing school who has just received her RN, and she and a friend from nursing
school watch the show at my place most weeks,
Both ladies want to know if Doug was *required* to stick to the DNR even though
the kid's mother had decided it was a mistake. Conversely, was he required now to
ignore it?
DPW
Scott Hollifield
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 16:46:05 -0800, Don Weinman <d...@weinman.com>
wrote:
>Scott, do you have any thoughts on this one? My daughter is a recent graduate of
>nursing school who has just received her RN, and she and a friend from nursing
>school watch the show at my place most weeks,
>
>Both ladies want to know if Doug was *required* to stick to the DNR even though
>the kid's mother had decided it was a mistake. Conversely, was he required now to
>ignore it?
Well, I'm not legally versed, but my interpretation of the episode was
this:
Since Jad was under 18, his mother had the authority over the DNR
order. When she said that she wanted it, the doctors acquiesced and
behaved accordingly, which is why they were about to let Jad's
breathing stop. When she changed her mind again and decided that she
didn't want the DNR order after all, the doctors were still obliged to
respect her wishes. The fact that she did it at almost literally the
last second doesn't negate that.
Rachel E. Lipson
Michelle Morrison wrote:
>
> Did you forget about Top Gun? I think that was Edwards' best movie ever, and although
> he's my fave actor, I think we saw a LITTLE too much of him this episode (i'm talking
> shower scene here).
>
Ach, I know. Isn't this his second shower scene? I kept wincing
everytime
the camera would pan down to the dog.
Rachel
Ron Bean
dvos...@mcs.NO_ADS.com (Denise L. Voskuil) writes:
>>>Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician?
>
>>I was. And I kept seeing her after I turned eighteen.
>
>I work in Pediatric Cardiology at the Univ. of IL - Chicago Medical
>Center, and we have many patients who are teenagers and young adults,
>and even some patients in their 30s and 40s! They still have a
>pediatric ailment (congenital heart defect), after all, and are
>comfortable with their doctor's knowledge of their condition.
It sounds like Doug (and Lydia) shouldn't have assumed the kid was under
18, just because his doctor was a pediatrician. Doug *is* a pediatician,
after all, and he specifically said "19-year-olds don't go to
pediatricians" (I just watched the tape again). Maybe he didn't realize
this because he's spent his whole career in the ER?
[Apologies if this got posted before-- our news server wasn't working too
well last night]
Marlene Blanshay
In article <32fcfa58...@news.cris.com>, sco...@cris.com (Scott
Hollifield) wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 14:13:33 -0400, blan...@vir.com (Marlene
> Blanshay) wrote:
> >My sister told me she was bawling at the end! I have to admit I was a bit
> >mushy myself. I was so happy for poor Jeannie. Finally she realized she
> >deserves some happiness after her jerk husband and Benton.I was so pissed
> >at Fisher for being mean to her!
>
> When was Fischer "mean" to her?
>
Maybe mean was the wrong word, but when he found out about her being HIV, I
thought he'd be a jerk, and simply forget about her. That's what it was
beginning to look like. I suppose he was probably simply surprised.
Steph and Spike
I agree that this cocktail is going to come into use by Jeannie BUT just
because someone is diagnosed as HIV positive doesn't mean they will die
soon. Jeannie could live for many years before the disease takes over.
Hisashi T Fujinaka
Don Weinman wrote:
> My daughter is a recent graduate of
> nursing school who has just received her RN, and she and a friend from nursing
> school watch the show at my place most weeks,
>
> Both ladies want to know if Doug was *required* to stick to the DNR even though
> the kid's mother had decided it was a mistake. Conversely, was he required now to
> ignore it?
>
As far as I know, it's more likely that a DNR request is ignored rather
than followed. It's 'easier' and the doctor's perceived job is supposed
to be to save lives. Anecdotally, I've heard of many cases where a DNR
request is being followed until a relative comes in and tells the doctor
to do all she can. The more distant the relative, the more likely they
are to disregard the DNR request.
--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@fls.portland.or.us - Fuji Landscape Service
BSEE (6/86) + BSChem (3/95) + BAEnglish (8/95) + $3.00 = mocha latte
Jonathan Roberts
Ron Bean wrote:
> Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician? Physically he should
> be an adult by that age, even though society won't treat him like one for
> another 8-10 years...
The practice of the pediatrician I saw was to deal with patients up
through the day they went off to college (as 18-year-olds; in this
neighborhood it's all but a given).
--
Best,
Jon
jonathan roberts \ in days somehow distracted
guitar:synth:notes \ in nights of troubled sleep
the region of where \ these secrets long suppressed emerge
nart...@ix.netcom.com \ too difficult to keep
Tina S
Marc Dashevsky <ma...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<E5AHt...@world.std.com>...
wrote:
> >>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
> >
> >>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
> >>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
> >>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
> >
> >faint resemblance. (The other two actresses in the film were Cher and
> >Michelle Pfeiffer.)
>
> I thought it was Veronica Cartwright, who played a young teen in THE
BIRDS,
> and later was in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and ALIEN. She had some
> prominent guest appearances on L. A. LAW as well.
It was -- and she was also in "The Witches of Eastwick."
James Meek
Earlier, asp...@cei.net wrote:
>I agree that this cocktail is going to come into use by Jeannie BUT just
>because someone is diagnosed as HIV positive doesn't mean they will die
>soon. Jeannie could live for many years before the disease takes over.
Jeannie's been on the "cocktail" almost since she was diagnosed with HIV.
I don't remember the exact episode, but she was taking part of the
cocktail when she was in the women's room chugging lots of pills and some
bottled water. It's called a "cocktail" not because it's a liquid potion,
but because it's a combination of several different HIV treatment drugs
working in concert to confront the disease.
So far, the "cocktail" has been almost a miracle drug for many patients;
there are plenty of HIV positive people on these meds who thought they'd
already have been dead. Long term prospects are, of course, unknown, but
it's certainly one of the most significant developments in AIDS/HIV
treatment to come down the pike.
Jeannie can easily, believably be a major character on "ER" for years to come.
--
--
James B. Meek (ja...@oz.net) ** http://www.oz.net/~james
"I had heard rumors of a lack of chemistry between the two stars, although one knows from long experience that this is a euphemism for the real dilemma, which is not enough physics." -- Anthony Lane on "In Love and War"
John S. Novak, III
In <32faca4c...@news.cris.com> sco...@cris.com (Scott Hollifield) writes:
Dam Concentric, anyway.
When the process of editting a response dies in an unusual way, the system
is supposed to let me do a 'vi -r' to recover most of my work. Remind
me to have a chat with system administration...
>E.R., Season 3, Episode 14, "Whose Appy Now?"
> Gee, with all the couples being put together in this
>episode, you'd almost think that Valentine's Day was around the
>corner.
<Gasp>
Izzit, now?
> Last week, I defended Mark Greene from complaints that
>he's becoming too Doug-like; now, I may have to consider
>rescinding my position. He juggles no less than four woman this
>week, counting ex Chuny, and this was a pretty cute storyline
>at showing how Mark still has a few things to learn about the
>single guy life, even if the "climax" threatened to veer into
>"Three's Company" contrivance.
Enh. A lot of people seem to have been unhappy or unimpressed with
this story line, comparing it to the Love Boat and other bad 70's sit
coms and, well, whatever category you put Love Boat and Fantasy Island
into.
Granted, the thing was played for laughs, but it is a reasonable
development of Mark's character and situation to date.
I've been sitting here lisening to the various female types on the
newsgroup pipe up with just how attractive Mark is, when they're not
talking about Doug. It's fairly clear, though, that while Mark _is_
attractive (I mean, let's be reasonable here-- He's a Sensitive
Nineties Guy, a nice guy, and a very highly paid professional who is
probably at the point of not being in extreme debt, anymore) he
doesn't have a great deal of self-confidence.
He's got enough to get himself the dates, but not enough to be easy
about it.
Witness the scene where Nina asks Mark out to dinner, that evening.
(Incidentally, as soon as she was pegged as a single parent, I knew
she'd ask Mark out.) Witness Mark's expression while he's doing his
dance-- he looks _really afraid_ that if he doesn't go out with Nina
that very evening, he will probably never get the opporunity to do so
again.
This is his only motivation in trying to juggle all these women at
once. He is afraid that he is, literally, out of sight and out of
mind. Insecurity, pure and simple.
He's hardly turning into Doug, here. Aside from the fact that Doug
knows better (from bitter experience) I don't think Doug has the
confidence problem that would compel him to accept two or three dates
for an evening like that.
> This show often makes a tradition out of defusing drama
>with humor, and that was plenty evident in Carter getting the
>opportunity to perform the "appy" on his nemesis and mentor,
>which somehow I suspect was more therapeutic for Carter than it
>was for Benton.
And let me be the first to suggest that if Carter didn't have "The
Sabre Dance" blasting away at some point, he was criminally negligent.
As for the other half of
>Carter's part of the story -- his nascent bond with Maggie Doyle
>-- what happens next at this point rests on a fact I don't know,
>namely whether the writers' decision to color Maggie's
>sexuality goes in the direction of lesbianism or bisexuality.
I am personally hoping she is lesbian, even though I suspect she will
turn out to be bisexual. The wording was too carefully ambiguous and
calculated to make one assume (with little grounding) that she's pure
lesbian, for it to be anything else.
However, if she turns out to be a lesbian, and thus completely
unattainable for Carter, she might just fall far enough outside his
general categorization scheme that he can have a healthier friendship
relationship with her than he's had with anyone in quite some time.
>a married woman" (Jeanie). Their conversation here alluded to
>the fact that Peter hasn't really decided what to do about
>Carla and her baby.
This is the sort of thing that Peter's character is wonderful for
showing, even though you have to think about it from Peter's point of
view to see it-- no doubt he found himself hoping, straying into
praying, for Carla to choose an abortion so that he can continue on
his professional track unimpeded.
> -Haleh receives karmic retribution as a result of her
> snide attitude of recent weeks, by getting in over her
> head while filling Carol's shoes.
I love to say "I told you so," so, "I told you so."
> This thread was
> cute and successful in its goal; now I'm ready to give
> Haleh a break and have Carol come back.
I'm not.
Not until she says "Uncle."
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
>> Maggie's
>> sexuality goes in the direction of lesbianism or bisexuality.
>> I guess I instinctively suspect the latter, given the whole
>> pairing-up thing
>As soon as Carter begins respecting a woman doctor or student he starts
>dating her - he even asked Susan out. I think it is about time he
>learned how to relate to women doctors without dating them.
Gee, I've been doing it wrong all this time.
Here, I only date women that I respect.
Maybe I should work on that problem relating to women.
Excuse me, I have to go set up some dates with some bimbos, and work
myself through this social problem...
John S. Novak, III
>> Maggie's
>> sexuality goes in the direction of lesbianism or bisexuality.
>> I guess I instinctively suspect the latter, given the whole
>> pairing-up thing
>As soon as Carter begins respecting a woman doctor or student he starts
>dating her - he even asked Susan out. I think it is about time he
>learned how to relate to women doctors without dating them.
Gee, I've been doing it wrong all this time.
Here, I only date women that I respect.
Maybe I should work on that problem relating to women.
Excuse me, I have to go set up some dates with some bimbos, and work
myself through this horrible problem I have. Be back in a few
weeks...
Ceon Ramon
In article <E59oF...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Kate the Short <ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <5dgckb$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <5dg8km$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
>>
>>>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>>>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>>>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
>>
>>No, it wasn't Susan Sarandon, although I can see where you might find a
>>faint resemblance. (The other two actresses in the film were Cher and
>>Michelle Pfeiffer.)
>
>are eating cherries, and this other woman at the fancy party starts
>barfing up cherry pits? And then she trips on marbles or cherry pits or
>something, and breaks her leg and is just on the floor? I think *that*
>is who Scott was mentioning...
Oh, sorry. I was confused by the original poster's reference to the
"other witch." As far as I could remember there were only three witches.
And I thought the woman who choked on the cherry pits was killed by the
malevolence of one of the three women, not Jack Nicholson's character.
--Barbara
Nancy Dooley
>Nicely set up by the writers and played by the actors. I don't
>remember the actress' name, but wasn't the mom also the "other"
>witch (the one who Jack Nicholson did in) in "Witches of Eastwick"?
>
Don't know about "Witches," but she played a recurring role in LALaw
as a particularly obnoxious opposing counsel (from the DA's office,
maybe?) She's an excellent actress.
Nancy.
"Get your facts first, and then you can
distort 'em as much as you please." (Samuel Clemens)
wal...@dnvn.com
In article <32FE88...@fls.portland.or.us>, Hisashi T Fujinaka
<ht...@fls.portland.or.us> wrote:
This was a simple case however. The mother was required to approve
the DNR and she was entirely within her rights to override it. Do
we really want doctors in ERs deciding when kids die? It was the
wrong decision, but it was the mother's decision.
k
Ceon Ramon
>> Don Weinman wrote:
>> > My daughter is a recent graduate of nursing school who has just
>> >received her RN, and she and a friend from nursing school watch the
>> >show at my place most weeks, Both ladies want to know if Doug was
>> >*required* to stick to the DNR even though the kid's mother had
>> >decided it was a mistake. Conversely, was he required now to ignore
>> >it?
>In article <32FE88...@fls.portland.or.us>, Hisashi T Fujinaka
><ht...@fls.portland.or.us> wrote:
>> As far as I know, it's more likely that a DNR request is ignored rather
>> than followed. It's 'easier' and the doctor's perceived job is supposed
>> to be to save lives. Anecdotally, I've heard of many cases where a DNR
>> request is being followed until a relative comes in and tells the doctor
>> to do all she can. The more distant the relative, the more likely they
>> are to disregard the DNR request.
>This was a simple case however. The mother was required to approve
>the DNR and she was entirely within her rights to override it. Do
>we really want doctors in ERs deciding when kids die? It was the
>wrong decision, but it was the mother's decision.
Yes, that's the law in the U.S. For anyone interested in seeing this kind
of dilemma laid out explicitly, I recommend Frederick Wiseman's stunning
six-hour documentary "Near Death," filmed over a long period in a terminal
care ward of a Boston hospital.
I don't know if this is still the case, but in the film those who had been
intubated and hooked up to a respirator were unable to speak. All they
could do while enduring the long, tedious, pain-wracked and humiliating
process of dying while all their organs failed was stare at the ceiling.
There are several episodes in the film where the attending physician
takes members of the family aside and tries to enlighten them about what
horrors they will be putting their loved ones through by prolonging their
deaths by insisting they be intubated and attached to respirators.
There is also a well-told anecdote illustrating this in the February issue
of The Atlantic Monthly, in the article "What Nurses Stand For," by
Suzanne Gordon.
It's quite human for us to desperately want those we love to be kept alive
no matter what. If people still died at home, if we who loved them had to
be the ones who care for all their needs and watch their agonies, we'd be
much less inclined to insist on prolonging death this way. I am speaking
from experience, as one who took on the responsibility of caring for my
mother at home during her last seven weeks as she died of ovarian cancer.
On the plane coming home I was still in shock and denial; I was still
thinking irrational thoughts such as, "There's been a mistake; there will
be a remission; there will be a miracle. She mustn't die; I love her too
much, I can't, I won't, let her go." By the end of the fourth week,
helpless and appalled in the face of the pitiless nature of death, I was
literally praying to God to show mercy and let her die. I think this must
be what nurses and doctors see very often, and all the time if they work
with terminal diseases. How awful for them, and how much I respect and
pity them.
People don't know what they're asking when they demand that people be kept
alive by any means even though their bodies are beyond help. There's a
limit to what people can endure, and there should be a limit to what we
are prepared to force them to endure.
--Barbara
Mel-Ra
On 7 Feb 1997, Ron Bean wrote:
>
> >It would take enormous strength of will and heart
> >to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>
> The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
> years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>
> Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician? Physically he should
> be an adult by that age, even though society won't treat him like one for
> another 8-10 years...
I stayed with my pediatrician until I turned 21 and then switched to my
mom and dad's grown-up doctor.
Love,
Mel
Melissa Agar
ma...@knox.edu
******************************************************************************
"Jerry, when you call me garbage, call me Mr. Garbage."
--Larry Flynt, to Jerry Falwell
"The older you get, the more rules they are going to try and get you to
follow. You just gotta keep on livin', man. L-I-V-I-N."
--Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
******************************************************************************
John S. Novak, III
>It's quite human for us to desperately want those we love to be kept alive
>no matter what. If people still died at home, if we who loved them had to
>be the ones who care for all their needs and watch their agonies, we'd be
>much less inclined to insist on prolonging death this way. I am speaking
>from experience, as one who took on the responsibility of caring for my
>mother at home during her last seven weeks as she died of ovarian cancer.
Well this isn't the _only_ reason, you know.
I had nothing to do with the care and maintenance of my grandfather
when his body just up and underwent systemic collapse a great number
of years ago; I still understood and actively supported the decision
of my parents to instruct the doctors to provide No Heroic Measures.
The man was not ever going to Get Better. His life could probably
have been prolonged indefinately, but there would be no medical
advances that could ever have returned him to anything like a normal,
healthy, happy life. Not in any acceptable time frame. Twenty years
from now, maybe. Not then.
And when other relatives reach that same condition, whether I am
involved in their care and uptake, I too will support any decision not
to prolong their lives past the point of their own happiness. Were I
in a mood to take offesne, I would take it simply because you seem to
be implying that it is the simple lack of workload that makes people
try to prolong the lives of their loved ones, and that because I am
not directly involved wth the upkeep (I live almost a thousand miles
away from most of my family) I would immediately tend toward needless
and painful life extension.
On the contrary, it is at the basic core, fear, weakness, and
self-centeredness that impels people to do these things. Yes, it is a
very natural, understandable, and forgiveable form of weakness and
self-centeredness, but it is one none-the-less.
It is _hard_ to look at a loved one and know that, by your decision,
you will _never_ be able to speak with this person again, ask their
advice, enjoy their company. It is for most if not all people, the
immediate, overwhelming concern. Mortality is a compelling issue, an
absolute. But on reflection, it is also hard to look at a loved one
and know that, by your own decision, the rest of their long days will
be filled with physical pain and emotional anguish.
It is always a fight between these two difficulties.
Claiming that the decision is driven by physical toil trivializes just
about everything of substance in the entire dilemma.
Sean Vanderfluit
Could someone post what the conversation between Chuny and Wendy in
spanish was about? Up here in Canada, it's French they make us learn!
Sean
--
If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
Jason....@m.cc.utah.edu
Mel-Ra <ma...@KNOX.EDU> wrote:
>On 7 Feb 1997, Ron Bean wrote:
>>
>> >It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>> >to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>>
>> The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
>> years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>>
>> Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician? Physically he should
>> be an adult by that age, even though society won't treat him like one for
>> another 8-10 years...
>I stayed with my pediatrician until I turned 21 and then switched to my
>mom and dad's grown-up doctor.
Your pediatrician wasn't grown up!?! How old was she/he? :)
Morton M. Goldmacher
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>>: I'm glad that Jeanie is finally letting go of her
>>: fears, at least slightly, and opening herself up to a relationship
>>: with Greg Fischer.
>>
>>I know lots of people have been pulling for this character to
>>open up. But her conversation with the patient revealed what it
>>was easy to forget: she was steeling herself to face an agonizing
>>death and is still a hazard to anyone who becomes physically intimate
>>with her. (Though who should know better than Greg, who is still
>>willing?) A moving bit, that.
>Yes, that was beautifully done. Gloria Reuben's vulnerability, that
>combination of fear and pain and longing when she murmured, "It's just...
>that it's been so long since anyone did that," was heart-breaking. Jeanie
>Boulet is a young woman, and we've seen her over many episodes steeling
>herself to the idea that she can never again allow herself to be
>touched or kissed or held.
I too was moved by the moment. Part of the tension from the inchaote
Greg/Jennie relationship was the fact that Greg did not communicate
the reason for his reluctance to embrace Jennie. On one hand it may
have been the fear of contracting the virus (even people who are well
informed still harbour emotionaly based fears) or having to forgo
certain high transmission risk activities, but on the other hand it
may be a fear of becomming deeply attached to someone who may face an
excruciating death at a young age. Was he fearful for his own
physical health or was he afraid to bet his heart on a love which is
doomed to emotional pain and loss. I hope the writers clue us in,
even though it is now besides the point.
Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor
Morton M. Goldmacher
rb...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Bean) wrote:
>>It would take enormous strength of will and heart
>>to let your only child die in front of your eyes, even as a kindness.
>The problem is, he's not a child anymore, and hasn't been for several
>years. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
>Would a 17 year old really be seeing a pediatrician? Physically he should
>be an adult by that age, even though society won't treat him like one for
>another 8-10 years...
At the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where my wife works,
patients are not referred to adult care until they reach eighteen
years of age.
John S. Novak, III
In <3300B1...@bbn.com> Mary Kennedy <mken...@bbn.com> writes:
>John S. Novak, III wrote:
>>
>> Claiming that the decision is driven by physical toil trivializes just
>> about everything of substance in the entire dilemma.
>Where *exactly* does she claim this?
Er, the part where she subjunctivizes on the condition, "If we were
the ones to take care of all their needs," leads me to believe that
the physical toil aspect is at least a _part_ of what she was talking
about.
Ceon Ramon
In article <5dq4gk$g...@newstand.syr.edu>,
Tinita M. Wheaton <twhe...@forbin.syr.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Now if Gloria Reuben ever decides she
>wants to leave the show for god, then they have a very convenient way to
>off her.
If she leaves the show for god they don't have to kill her off, they can
have her enter a convent. :-)
--Barbara, who also makes typos
Tinita M. Wheaton
In article <5drh76$5...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
LOL! one little typo can give a sentence a whole new meaning...
tmw
--
wal...@dnvn.com
In article <5dqoe5$1...@sulawesi.lerc.nasa.gov>,
Michelle...@lerc.nasa.gov (Michelle A Mader) wrote:
> In article <5dqim8$j...@news.interlog.com>, alc...@interlog.com says...
> >
> >I too was moved by the moment. Part of the tension from the inchaote
> >Greg/Jennie relationship was the fact that Greg did not communicate
> >the reason for his reluctance to embrace Jennie. On one hand it may
> >have been the fear of contracting the virus (even people who are well
> >informed still harbour emotionaly based fears) or having to forgo
> >certain high transmission risk activities, but on the other hand it
> >may be a fear of becomming deeply attached to someone who may face an
> >excruciating death at a young age. Was he fearful for his own
> >physical health or was he afraid to bet his heart on a love which is
> >doomed to emotional pain and loss. I hope the writers clue us in,
> >even though it is now besides the point.
>
> I thought that when Kerry Weaver was first telling Jeanie about Greg
> Kerry said that Greg had just lost his partner to AIDS. This initially
> caused Jeanie to assume that Greg was gay until Kerry clarified that
> it was Greg's partner at work. I think Greg has already experienced
> the pain of losing someone to AIDS and was debating going through that
> experience again.
Why would anyone knowingly enter a dating relationship with someone
who cannot fulfill the natural outcome of a dating relationsihp i.e.
marriage and procreation? I don't see anything at all odd about
reluctance to enter such a relationship. If I were a 30 year old
unmarried man seeking courtship, I would certainly not date women
with terminal illnesses that would also infect my children if we
had any. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't form friendships
with people with AIDS or HIV -- they should -- but courtship has
different purposes than friendship and it is not 'prejudice' to select
only people with whom one could have a reasonable hope for marriage
and family.
k
Ceon Ramon
In article <5dolqb$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
John S. Novak, III <J...@cris.com> wrote:
>In <5dntbb$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon)
>>It's quite human for us to desperately want those we love to be
>>kept alive no matter what. If people still died at home, if we who
>>loved them had to be the ones who care for all their needs and watch
>>their agonies, we'd be much less inclined to insist on prolonging death
>>this way. I am speaking from experience, as one who took on the
>>responsibility of caring for my mother at home during her last seven
>>weeks as she died of ovarian cancer.
> >Well this isn't the _only_ reason, you know.
I'm sorry; I'm confused. What isn't the only reason for what?
>I had nothing to do with the care and maintenance of my grandfather
>when his body just up and underwent systemic collapse a great number
>of years ago; I still understood and actively supported the decision
>of my parents to instruct the doctors to provide No Heroic Measures.
As I would have done in my own experience, as I thought I made explicit
earlier. We (my mother and I) requested no heroic measure; I was to be
only judge of what was to be done to ease her way out of life.
>The man was not ever going to Get Better. His life could probably
>have been prolonged indefinately, but there would be no medical
>advances that could ever have returned him to anything like a normal,
>healthy, happy life. Not in any acceptable time frame. Twenty years
>from now, maybe. Not then.
Yes, yeah, yeah. People die. The people we love die. You and I will die.
I'm still not understanding what you're saying, since you seen to strike
an antgonistic posture to what I said earlier, but I don't understand
where we differ.
>Were I in a mood to take offesne, I would take it simply because you
>seem to be implying that it is the simple lack of workload that makes
>people try to prolong the lives of their loved ones
What, _what_? Huh? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.
What does "simple lack of workload" mean? I took a month-long sabbatical
without pay from Columbia University to come out to the west coast and
care for my mother while she was dying. What does "lack of workload"
mean? I had plenty of workload waiting for me, and plenty of work once I
got to my mother's house to care for her in her last weeks of life.
What _are_ you talking about? I think you must have misunderstood in some
critical way what I was saying.
What I said was that I came home to care for my mother while she was
dying.
How are you gathering all this into some kind of personal insult and
accusation I do not understand.
>, and that because I am >not directly involved wth the upkeep (I live
almost a thousand miles >away from most of my family) I would immediately
tend toward needless and painful life extension.
what? What _are you talking about_?
>On the contrary, it is at the basic core, fear, weakness, and
>self-centeredness that impels people to do these things.
What THINGS? What THINGS are people impelled to do through weakness,
fear, or self-interest? What _are_ you talking about?
I came home to care for my mother in her last weeks of dying for my own
reasons, I admit; but yet the very mention of suffering or grief or
sacrifice you appear to translate into some kind of insult directed
personally at you.
I don't get it. Please explain.
What are these THINGS, what are these WEAKNESES, thse FEARS. that make us
so inferior to you or your envisioned ideal, John? Name these THINGS,
these FEELINGS, these NON-FEELINGS, that make one person superior to
another?
Yes, it is a
>very natural, understandable, and forgiveable form of weakness and
>self-centeredness, but it is one none-the-less.
What? WHAT is a very natural understandable and forgiveable form or
weakness and self-centeredness? Caring for the dying? What the _hell_
are you rabbiting on about?
>It is _hard_ to look at a loved one and know that, by your decision,
>you will _never_ be able to speak with this person again, ask their
>advice, enjoy their company.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I thought you were berating me for
my own attitudes, which devolved strictly from helping someone die a
natural death, without making any of these kinds of judgments that would
mean that BY YOUR DECISION YOU WILL NEVER AGAIN BE ABLE TO SPEAK or
whatever kind of blaahblah that strikes you as self-serving comfort.
My mother died.
I was not god nor did I play at being god. I did not make any decisions
that determined whether she lived or died.
I didn't decide when she died, or why, or how; all I said was that I tried
to make her comfortable and let her know she was loved as she was dying.
>It is for most if not all people, the
>immediate, overwhelming concern. Mortality is a compelling issue, an
>absolute. But on reflection, it is also hard to look at a loved one
>and know that, by your own decision, the rest of their long days will
>be filled with physical pain and emotional anguish.
I really don't know what the fug you're babbling about.
--Barbara
Tirya
wal...@dnvn.com said...
<Speculation on whether Jeannie should enter a relationship or not
snipped>
> Why would anyone knowingly enter a dating relationship with someone
> who cannot fulfill the natural outcome of a dating relationsihp i.e.
> marriage and procreation? I don't see anything at all odd about
> reluctance to enter such a relationship. If I were a 30 year old
> unmarried man seeking courtship, I would certainly not date women
> with terminal illnesses that would also infect my children if we
> had any. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't form friendships
> with people with AIDS or HIV -- they should -- but courtship has
> different purposes than friendship and it is not 'prejudice' to select
> only people with whom one could have a reasonable hope for marriage
> and family.
I have a real problem defining "the natural outcome of a dating
relationship" as marriage and procreation for a few reasons...
...first off is the thought that Jeannie shouldn't be "shunned" because
she's HIV+. She needs companionship, too... just because she's got HIV
doesn't make her a leper and "not worthy" of being dated or married.
...second off, if half of the "natural outcome of a dating relationship"
is procreation, does that mean that people who can't have kids shouldn't
date?
...third off, if Fischer is going to blow Jeannie off because she has HIV
and there's "no future" for them, it's his own loss. You don't have to
sleep with someone to enjoy being with them.
My $0.02, YMMV.
Tirya
--
ti...@enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~tirya NO JUNK EMAIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANGER!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Lloyd Hill
In article <5e2pe3$r...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) writes to JSN3:
>What, _what_? Huh? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.
[Lather, rinse, repeat]
>I really don't know what the fug you're babbling about.
Here's what he's going on about: you wrote "It's quite human for us to
desperately want those we love to be kept alive no matter what. If people
still died at home, if we who loved them had to be the ones who care for
all their needs and watch their agonies, we'd be much less inclined to
insist on prolonging death this way."
Many of us would disagree with you. Many of us would never encourage a
doctor to keep a loved one alive at any cost, whether we were present
at the deathwatch or not. Your statements about your role in your mother's
last few weeks seemed to wrap you in a shroud of nobility and to imbue you
with some form of superiority, as though those of us who cannot be with our
loved ones before their deaths call up the family doctor and say "Hey, Doc,
I'm too busy to see about Granddad, but why don't you just pop a tube up
his ass and send me a bill?"
It's human nature to resist death; indeed, to deny its inevitability.
People have literally gone mad trying to wrap their minds around the
cessation of existence. Being present at the deathbed of a suffering
relative in no way guarantees that the living will have the strength of
will or character to say "Let it end. By my words, I will end her
suffering, and never again speak to her, be spoken to by her, or even hold
her hand in mine."
The moment of finality is intensely individual, and more than almost any of
the myriad actions we engage in to distinguish ourselves from ants, death
defies generalizations.
Jim
--
j-h...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu http://www.swcp.com/~jimhill/
"I'm sorry, was that insensitive?"
Scott Hollifield
On 14 Feb 1997 21:28:50 GMT, wal...@dnvn.com wrote:
>Why would anyone knowingly enter a dating relationship with someone
>who cannot fulfill the natural outcome of a dating relationsihp i.e.
>marriage and procreation? I don't see anything at all odd about
>reluctance to enter such a relationship.
No offense, but that sounds really twisted to me.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I enter relationships based on
a single factor, and if I ever decide to spend my life with
someone, it will be based on that same factor. That factor is:
Do I want to *be* with this person? Not "can they have my
children", nor "will they put me at risk for infectious
diseases", but do I want to share time, space, companionship,
feelings, experiences and affections with them?
I guess it depends on individual priorities. Sex and children
are both fine things, but they rank as a distant second and third
to the overarching forces that draw me to other people.
>If I were a 30 year old
>unmarried man seeking courtship, I would certainly not date women
>with terminal illnesses that would also infect my children if we
> had any. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't form friendships
>with people with AIDS or HIV -- they should -- but courtship has
>different purposes than friendship and it is not 'prejudice' to select
>only people with whom one could have a reasonable hope for marriage
>and family.
Well, by the definition of the word, this *is* a prejudice (even
though many people use that word to assign a value judgement).
Whether you consider it a good or ill prejudice is one's own
concern, but any discriminating factor is a prejudice. My
prejudice is what I mentioned above.
---
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
Jay Bremner
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 14:11:14 -0400, blan...@vir.com (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:
>Just a few days ago I discovered I have to have surgery, scheduled for
>March, and since I've never had any kind of major surgery in my life, I'm a
>little bit anxious about it even though it's not serious. My friend said,
>"Gee, you'd better not watch ER between now and then!" But of course I
>watched,and during the scene with Dr Benton's operation, I thought, "GREAT!
>That's what they're going to do while I'm under anasthesia? maybe I should
>ask for an epidural so I can stay awake and watch!" It was really
>hilarious.
I think that the docs would be acting more reserved. More like you
see during the majority of the surgery scenes on ER. The only reason
they were clowning around is because the operation wasn't really life
threatening. I know that a burst appendix can be deadly, but it
didn't appear that he was close to having his appendix burst. They
were all thrilled to have Benton in a position of weakness. Just
imagine the laughs they'll have when they spread the pics around the
sugical ward. The interns and the docs on Benton's staff will love
it!
(:
--jay
>
>
>So that night I had a dream about Dr Benton, but I don't remember it at
>all.I was expecting that his stomach pain would be an ulcer. IF there's
>anyone who would be fertile ground for a nice big ulcer it would be Benton,
>the ideal repressed acid factory. I was surprised when it turned out to be
>his appendix!
If you can't tend to your own planet,
none of you deserve to live here.
-"The Arrival"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geek Code v 3.1: GCS d-(?) s:+ a-- C++(++++) UBL+(-) P+ L+>++ E- W+>++
N+++ o? K- w+ O? M-(+) V- PS+ PE++(-) Y+ PGP? t+ 5 X
R+>+++ tv+ b+++ DI? D++ G e<++ h-->+(++) r--(*) !y+?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ceon Ramon
In article <5e2r2j$2...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@ehsn26.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Here's what he's going on about: you wrote "It's quite human for us to
>desperately want those we love to be kept alive no matter what. If people
>still died at home, if we who loved them had to be the ones who care for
>all their needs and watch their agonies, we'd be much less inclined to
>insist on prolonging death this way."
>Many of us would disagree with you. Many of us would never encourage a
>doctor to keep a loved one alive at any cost, whether we were present
>at the deathwatch or not. Your statements about your role in your mother's
>last few weeks seemed to wrap you in a shroud of nobility and to imbue you
>with some form of superiority, as though those of us who cannot be with our
>loved ones before their deaths call up the family doctor and say "Hey, Doc,
>I'm too busy to see about Granddad, but why don't you just pop a tube up
>his ass and send me a bill?"
OK, John and Jim: I apologize to both of you and anyone else I offended
You may wrest the shroud of noble superiority from my body and do what you
will with it. I'm quite sorry if I sounded self-righteous. Sometimes
such traumatic and emotional experiences rather than enlarging our
sympathies with others isolate us; I hope that's not what happened to me.
But again, if that's how what I said is being interpreted, then I
apologize.
--Barbara
Denise L. Voskuil
On 14 Feb 1997 21:28:50 GMT, wal...@dnvn.com wrote:
>Why would anyone knowingly enter a dating relationship with someone
>who cannot fulfill the natural outcome of a dating relationsihp i.e.
>marriage and procreation? I don't see anything at all odd about
>unmarried man seeking courtship, I would certainly not date women
>with terminal illnesses that would also infect my children if we
> had any. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't form friendships
>with people with AIDS or HIV -- they should -- but courtship has
>different purposes than friendship and it is not 'prejudice' to select
>only people with whom one could have a reasonable hope for marriage
>and family.
Yes, it is a prejudice - the word basically means a "pre-judgement".
I started seeing my fiance' because he's wonderful, and we got along
well at the time. We're still together because it worked out nicely,
and I'm happy it did. I got engaged to him because I wanted to spend
the rest of my life with him.
If he had some sort of illness, I'd have to deal with my feelings
about that, but it wouldn't change who he _is_. Both of us have
genetically-based conditions that might be passed on, and we have to
consider the ramifications of those, but who says we have to have our
own genetic children (much less have children AT ALL)? I LOVE him,
and I'd be _damned_ insulted if anyone ever told me I shouldn't have
started dating him because of a medical condition.
BTW, your phrasing makes it sound like people who are infertile, as
well as gays and lesbians, should never date; I hope that's not your
intention. I also hope that you would not abandon a spouse who
suddenly turned up HIV+, or with cystic fibrosis, or multiple
sclerosis, or so many other illnesses that can strike people down - or
that your spouse would not abandon you in such a case because you were
no longer prime reproductive material.
Jeannie could remain only HIV+ (not progressing to AIDS, or at least
not symptomatic) for years, even a decade or more, with the drugs that
we have now. Explain to me how this will affect her ability to be
married? If she decided she wanted to raise children but not take the
1/3 (last I heard) chance that their child would be HIV+, they could
always adopt. People with HIV or AIDS have every right to be treated
as full human beings worthy of respect and, yes, even romantic love.
- Denise
--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: mcs.com/eden.com/uic.edu
*Remove the "NO_ADS" in my E-mail address to reply - I'm sick of
spammers getting my address off of Usenet.*
http://www.mcs.net/~dvoskuil/
"In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is
chosen by others." - Andre' Maurois
Marc Dashevsky
In article <5dr4kt$s...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
>
>>John S. Novak, III wrote:
>>>
>>> Claiming that the decision is driven by physical toil trivializes just
>>> about everything of substance in the entire dilemma.
>
>>Where *exactly* does she claim this?
>
>Er, the part where she subjunctivizes on the condition, "If we were
>the ones to take care of all their needs," leads me to believe that
>the physical toil aspect is at least a _part_ of what she was talking
>about.
Whenever you wish to return to Planet Earth, just let us know.
Until then, call your doctor and let him/her know how much the messages
from the aliens are interfering with your day-to-day life and that you
want your medication regimen to be adjusted.
Hoping for your speedy recovery,
Marc
Roger Noe
In article <5dph3m$3...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>,
Sean Vanderfluit <flu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>Could someone post what the conversation between Chuny and Wendy in
>spanish was about? Up here in Canada, it's French they make us learn!
Certainement!
I've written each line twice--first as it appeared in the closed
captioning (which does not exactly match the spoken dialogue), the
second as an approximate colloquial English translation of what was
actually said. (The differences are very minor--things like an
intentionally wrong verb ending to communicate familiarity--nothing
that greatly changes the meaning.) Anyone who would like to offer
corrections, especially native Spanish speakers, please feel free to
do so.
Wendy: "So? ?Oistes lo de Mark Greene y las tres chavas?"
[So, did you hear about Mark Greene and the three girls?]
Chuny: "?Tu cres? Ya parece un doctor Don Juan."
[Do you believe it? He's acting like Dr. Don Juan.]
Wendy: "?Estas selosa?"
[Are you jealous?]
Chuny: "No, nosotros tuvimos algo tu sabes un little fling, pero."
[No, we had something going, you know, but just a little fling.]
Wendy: "Is it true what they say about los calvitos?"
[Is it true what they say about bald men?]
Chuny: "Girl, es bien apasionado. Todo lo que quiere hacer es sexo."
[Girl, he is good and passionate. All he ever wants is sex, sex, sex.]
Wendy: "No!"
[No!]
Really no surprises in that. Given the mixture of English with it,
you can probably figure out most of it by context.
--
Roger Noe n...@platsol.com
Platinum Solutions, Inc. (619) 546-9522