I came across an article " An Injection Of Hard Science Boosts TV Shows' Prognosis" and I couldn't help but write my take on this doctor show phenomenon. I think ER is not believable as far as the physician's general attitude and behavior are concerned. (I will not even comment on the inferior doctor shows. ) Now, there may be rare physicians, medical professionals and paramedical personnel who have that kind of a make-up, and this may be obvious in certain situations. But not all situations. If that kind of drama is what prevails in emergency rooms (ER's) and wards, then patients' care and prognosis will definitely be compromised. ER is overly dramatized. The medical situations are turned into a bonanza of ill-reacting doctors, nurses, patients and janitors.
Don't get me wrong. I watched ER knowing that Michael Crichton, one of my favorite writers, wrote for the show.I very much value his work or whatever work he may be involved in even peripherally. Every time I see an ER episode, I try to see his imprint on the story twists. I read all his books (and I am beyond excited when I learned that the last novel he wrote, right before his death, was discovered in his PC and is now awaiting publication), admired his honesty, adored his wit, "sided" with his no-side, agenda-less take on the global warming issue. In this blog, I would just like to blurt out my humble opinion on the doctor show phenomenon.
As far as medical facts are concerned, I salute the consultants/researchers with coming up with the most esoteric, zebras of a diagnosis that even clinical experts would have a hard time blurting them out just like that. Although there may be the "ideal" ER's/wards manned by clinicians who are also academicians, rarely, would there be such a situation like that. This is more apparent in the series House, which I just happened to watch last night. Not only is this attending and residents not neurologists, rheumatologists, neuroradiologists,or endocrinologists (I still don't know what medical specialties they practice, or maybe I missed a very important episode when they revealed what they are, especially House), but the way they talk, argue, manage patients, and even perform the procedures they do, made me conclude they're specialists (and even subspecialists in some fields) in all the above mentioned disciplines. And all these in a community hospital setting.
This overlooked yet to-your-face aberration, may be due to the fact that a significant number of the show's consultants are researchers and "technically- minded" , and the necessary input from a long-time, experienced clinician is lacking. Or it may have been that if too much of a real clinician's input is considered, the over-all effect might be that the show would lack appeal and drama. If it would help soften the above comment, Dr. House's effect on me is, and I know the majority of the House-watching populace would agree: I, myself, wouldn't mind being assessed (but maybe not admitted) by the Vicodin-addicted Dr.House. He reminds me so much of the cocaine-using yet brilliant Sherlock Holmes.
Don't get me wrong; House is the only doctor show I really enjoy. But the episode I saw last night made me cringe. Not just because of the blurting of a mouthful of diagnoses that are "interconnected" but also concluding that there may already be a complication (vasculitic) that is confounding the over-all problematic picture. These only from plain deduction.
There's one aspect that I cherish, though, not just in that episode I recently watched but in almost all of House's episodes, and that is at the end it makes it all clear that the physicians' viurtues of "looking" at the patient, at the entire picture and addressing every aspect of patient care are the real "stars" of the show.
