I’ve noticed both medical dramas and police dramas rely heavily on Californian legal practice, because Hollywood. For example, I just watched the episode of Doc (it’s literally just called Doc) where a doctor saved someone on the “DNR list” and almost got suspended, and so here I was thinking “the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment”. Of course, though, the US (and definitely California) are not the whole world. So I was wondering, what’s an episode of a medical/police drama you could think of where, in your legal environment, the characters would seem crazy for diving into the topic of how they did?
Not directly related to the question, but Brazilian medical drama is nurses fighting to keep shit up and running on hospitals while medics clock in then head off to their particular clinics.
Brazil also still has separate military and civil polices, the former doing the legwork and shooting people, the latter doing actual investigations, so any USA-like police drama just wouldn’t work here.
Makes me wonder when someone is going to make a military drama.
Doctor Mike is a real doctor with a youtube channel. He reviews multiple episodes of House and they’re hilarious. It’s like every time House has some epiphany and orders some new radical treatment he winds up yelling “WHY!?” into the ether.
Removed by mod
That’s not legal culture shock, that’s just the same law playing out in different ways (we don’t even know what happened). What episode are you even thinking of? I only remember this happening once in a show (and it played out rather stereotypically), not sure if the same thing was in mind.
Hey mod/poster, you removed my reply, added one of your own that was down voted…are you applying for a US government post or what?
Also, my post totally answered the prompt and you didn’t cite any community rules as to why it was removed, so I assume it’s because you don’t understand or agree with it, which seems like a “you, poster” problem not a mod issue. You make Lemmy a worse place with this kind of abuse of mod responsibility.
There is a rule saying no US politics is allowed if it’s tangential. I have been trying to balance that with an understanding of how things develop, but then you have things like people turning it into a deterrent as well as a window to break other rules. So I thought “well this conversation that seemed oddly specifically Trumpy seems forgotten about” and I removed it :(
So how would you propose to have a discussion about legal topics that you opened without tangentially discussing politics? Laws are passed by politicians, appointed or elected officials, through ballot measures by voters, or by mandate of autocrats.
Genuinely curious how you think your thread could possibly not break the rule you’re citing as law, by definition, comes out of a political process?
You should remove your own thread, it sets up discussions the community claims it doesn’t want to host .
Discussions of law don’t necessitate anything relating to specific political issues, scandalous or not. I can’t remember a relevant TV program that speaks of a specific person in power, which is why when you said what you said, I asked what media actually came to mind when you said that, and I was wondering if it was hypothetical. After a while, it just seemed random and forgotten, so after people were negatively bringing up the leniency (breaking rules 3 and 5, which is why that was locked), I removed it to clean it and withdrew my own comment (which was an honest question that got booed even before I did anything) to be fair. That is all, nothing like a ban or anything.
I guess it wouldn’t really change at all since I am in California. I’ll still have free healthcare (that isn’t very good) from the state, and all the doctors are super sexy because that’s actually how it is here. Everyone thinks Hollywood is bullshit; they’ve just never been to California. 🤷🏻♂️
Wasn’t The Resident in Georgia?
Basically none of the police drama coming out of Hollywood would hold up in the real world. Not even in California.
They do draw heavily upon references to their norms though.
a doctor saved someone on the “DNR list” and almost got suspended, and so here I was thinking “the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment”.
Assuming you mean a Do Not Resuscitate order; not list
Curious what you mean by it not flying in your environment.The conceptualization behind them isn’t treated everywhere equally. I’m not as traditionally-minded as the people around me, but I live somewhere that’s far more traditional than progressive California. Now maybe I’m not updated on the norms (and to be fair, I’m still new here), but I think I remember reading it’s viewed as an omen of a shortage of therapy here, in the same way as its more self-destructive alternatives.
It seems like there’s some disconnect here on what a DNR order is. I’m not an expert but my understanding is it’s a legal statement the patient made prior to becoming a patient defining what lengths should or shouldn’t be taking to keep them alive.
So I don’t see what that has to do with California being progressive.
When you say “omen of a shortage of therapy” it sounds like you’re maybe talking about being an organ donor?
…as opposed to self-harm?
Some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive. Cut and dry. They lump all the implications together, all the dilemmas and all the complexities that arise with the life issue. This is often associated with the law-based concepts of the Good Samaritan and the “duty to protect”. They, of course, are not mind readers and can’t look into the individual’s psyche and they resort to not taking chances. Was the person of sound mind? Were they under duress? Where do they stand between circumstantial acceptance and circumstantial yearning? Things even such as those they won’t end up guessing. Some are too afraid of what such a power can turn into, via the slippery slope trope.
The more clarification I ask for the less clarity I’m getting which is kinda disappointing because I think the original question was possibly very interesting…
😞
You say that like “some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive” might not immediately establish “alright, this society quite clearly thinks refusal of life support is a passive form of suicide”. That’s just how it is here, whether I like it or not.
Are you saying that a DNR would be viewed as the same as euthanasia? Because those are very different things legally and a DNR is a very standard document in most developed countries.
Different in some places but not everywhere. I’m not saying this as a position, just an observation. My viewpoint would be far more developed than even that.
Well what is your viewpoint? After multiple comments I still can’t piece it together.
Because I wasn’t mentioning my own viewpoint, I was mentioning how the law might differ.
I did explain it explicitly, so I think the best way to explain it then is with an analogy/visualization.
Imagine an umbrella. The umbrella is labelled “issues of self-harm”. Underneath the umbrella are all the things which can amount to or turn into it.
On the very edge underneath it is the issue of DNR. Where you live, the umbrella is nudged away from it. Where I live, the umbrella would just pass over it.
My own stance, which I have not mentioned until right now, is that, supposing someone has asked all the questions to themselves relating to their life, they should consult whoever has authority over the DNR or whatever it is.
The fact the very same important questions can be asked in the first place regarding both aspects of this issue (which you give the impression don’t come off as related) shows they are related in the ways alluded to. The episode of Doc even explored this very thing. Hence I said that would not work out where I live. Hence I was asking, what kinds of legal culture shock have you picked up on in a TV show.
You aren’t explaining “your environment” well. You are being way too vague and abstract on these concepts.
the patient’s perspective would never fly in my environment
This doesn’t make sense. Your “environment” not regarding a person’s choice to forego certain medical treatment sounds more like a personal preference. It’s hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason. Whether you personally agree with it or not is irrelevant to the overall environment. So the way you have approached that topic feels like it’s your opinion rather than the overall culture of your “environment”.
So can you elaborate on your “environment” and how it regards someone opting to not be resuscitated? If you want a specific, consider an elderly person with aggressive cancer along to be DNR?
It’s hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason.
Wait, really? All this hoopla over healthcare reform these days and there are people who say it shouldn’t be a given? Not invalidating you, just surprised and trying to think of it all.
So can you elaborate on your “environment”
Culture, philosophy, law, whatever you want to call it. It’s all intertwined. Every rule and every norm you live by. Imagine your part of the world. Imagine the borders, the ones where, if you step outside these borders, certain laws no longer apply. Your confusion seems to come from being adamant that it shouldn’t be a legal issue, that it’s a no-brainer. The law, sadly, does not care what should and shouldn’t be a legal issue. My last downvoter be damned, because again, their words, not mine. Anyone thinking anything here is my personal preference is not only shooting the messenger but also overthinking this, which might explain if anyone doesn’t understand it. I only have the power to let people know that, within my borders, there resides my own legal environment. A sphere with its own rules of thumb and its own ways of thinking and doing things.
The place I live in is very anti-eugenics. It’s pro-life. It’s pro-equality. It’s very medically established despite its low population. One day in school, we were talking about how, in the United Kingdom, there was a scandal where the government was putting people on one of those lists without their permission. Every debate around life and death is a gateway to another. A bureaucratic mistake can mean the difference between choice and persecution. It is then those of us who observe all of this who think “at what point does a rational, well-informed decision on the matter become one that’s not rational or well-informed”. Would a person who requests DNR who is then reckless and suffers due to it not amount to a kind of self-destruction? Would the same person be considered “murdered” if someone kills them? If someone depends on them, would it be “murdering” those people if something happened? I redirected to at least ten of these kinds of questions.
It’s not so much “abstract” as the whole topic is a blur to begin with, again hence the episode. In more ways than one, I’m just the messenger. I was really hoping the original question might be answered, not just being dedicated to questioning a small part of it. Should I just not elaborate on my questions?
