What House Would Do During A Pandemic | House M.D..
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- In an effort to discover the source of the epidemic, House begins treating the children. However, when the kidneys of two of the children shut down, House is forced to test which drug caused the failure, resulting in one of the babies dying.
Stream full seasons on Peacock: pck.tv/39BlAG0
Season 1 Episode 4 "Maternity"
After overhearing a conversation about a sick baby, House investigates the maternity ward and predicts an epidemic. After realizing the severity of the disease, Cuddy quarantines the maternity ward. Following an autopsy, the team discovers the presence of echovirus 11, CMV, and parvovirus B19 antibodies. They test the mothers and decide the cause of the epidemic is the Echovirus. Using an experimental anti-virus, they successfully cure the remaining babies. House, determined to find the entry point of the virus, finds an elderly hospital volunteer coughing and wiping her nose as she pushes around a cart of baby toys and blankets and makes the connection.
Your favorite shows, movies and more are here. Stream now on Peacock: www.peacocktv.com
Watch House on Google Play: bit.ly/2tu3kHh & iTunes apple.co/2tCSJOu
Subscribe: bit.ly/2goT95b
This is the official UA-cam channel for House M.D.. Watch all of the official clips from the series, the funniest and saddest moments, and follow all of the doctor's most curious cases. - Розваги
This man could insult Covid out of existence
Nah bring Gordon ramsey for that
@@oussamamabrouk5273 "This elderly man is so healthy he is not even coughing!GET OUT!"
quack quack when it comes to insults house can destroy Ramsey without raising a decibel
@@raykazmi8521 bold of you to assume that they wouldn't work together and just completely decimate anything/anyone on the receiving end of their insults
Imagine House on Hell's Kitchen
House: Some of you may die but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Commander Cthulhu 🤣
I confused that quote for General Grevious's
I thought it was Hedley Lamar.
House would dismiss covid cases as boring and go find someone with mercury poisoning from a pig or something
I wish I could go wherever ur profile pic is :( can u take me, Steven? CAN YOU
He'd love the original case: "Man get's sick from eating bat". That's right up House's alley.
@@JAEratt13 they can't pin down when case 0 occurred to less than a 3 month period and you think they know the method of transmission from bat to person with any greater certainly.....
I mean... that does sound kinda interesting
The thing is people think House will be able to cure it just because he's House. No, he just figures out what it is and if it's curabe. He can find it's cancer but not treat it if it's not treatable yet...
“your daughters kidneys are shutting dow-“
*video gets cuts off*
Me: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT-
death
@@bodya1337-p9x mmmbybeheading....
One of the babies die
They find out it was a viral infection after the autopsy
It was spread by the old lady who brings toys to the new borns
Video shut down
One kid dies. One kid lives.
What would House do during a pandemic? Cure it.
Yup exactly, so true 😅
Unfortunately he's not a researcher, lmao
House wasn't curing diseases, he was diagnosing them
@@ICavalcadeI Yeah, he practices medicine not research
He will say "blah blah blah, this might kill them blah blah blah it will save you"
He would be playing with his gameboy, watching hospital soap operas and missing those monster truck live shows...
Its not condemning one to death by random chance, but rather condemning one to live by random chance. Instead of the random chance that both will die if they guess wrong, one will get better if it is one of the two.
No, I think he got it right the first time. Sacrificing one to save not only the other, but also the two that weren't experiencing kidney failure. This "trial" as House called it saved three lives.
@@redwall1521 Yeah, but the issue is that it is morally wrong. Thats why house is brilliant, because he ignores what people say is "ethically" correct and saves lives
MisterSmith I honestly don’t see how it’s even considered morally wrong 🤷♂️
@@redeyes3847 because you are blatantly sentencing a child to die. Dispite the fact that you are saving many others. That is against medical morals
MisterSmith I don’t it should be considered morally wrong, would it be more morally correct to treat them both exactly the same and then have them both die?
I don't understand why they're so offended by his plan to trial each patient with a different medication. They literally were trying to do the same thing, randomly guessing which medication is the problem and then waiting for them to either get better or for every one of them to die of the infection. The only difference is House is limiting variance. And variance is not something you want in a life or death situation.
Issue is that there is a 100 percent chance that they would kill one of the two
I enjoy seeing House treating sick infants a bit more seriously than a sick adult, it’s as if to say there’s lines even he won’t cross.
Infants are never at fault for the things they have and they also don't lie to House - so they are in a way innocent and not stupid, which House respects
"You're condemning one of these kids to die base on random chance." - Foreman isn't this stupid. His way, either the kids are both saved, or they both die. His way potentially condemns both to death, based on random chance. How is that better?
What did that lawyer mean by "They have to know another patient is getting a different treatment."? Like hell they do! Doesn't that break Doctor Patient confidentiallity? No one has the right to know what someone else is getting.
It doesnt break confidentiallity because they are not saying who the other patients ARE.
If im at the hospital needing medicine i hope i am on the same medicine as other people like me
No it doesn't
that lawyer clearly never finished law school
I think it's one of those tricky ethical grey areas.
Doctor'ing itself often involves "harming" patients to heal them (scalpels and needles) so the reason you let doctors do it, is because of that assumption they are harming in the short term to heal in the long term...
... However, the decision to take the baby off the drug that will save its life is a harmful decision with no pay off *for that patient*. It helps *others*, but in the same way you can't randomly take an organ out of patient A to save patient B without the consent of A (or A's family).
@@auricstorm Agree. Parties have to be informed. You do not get to play with lives
Actually, this made the most sense. Imagine the situation where something else besides the antibiotics caused the problem. If you take both kids off one and still die of kidney failure, this would lead you to believe the other antiobiotic should work when in truth it was the other factor and now you need another baby to find out the 2nd antibiotic wasn't going to help either. If you give a different antibiotic to both kids, this possibility of a hidden problem would show up as both would still worsen, giving you more information. This was the right choice.
Yep, that's what happened. It wasn't a bacteria, it was a virus. They went bacteria route mostly because antibiotics could was a great and easy treatment. If it would be a virus, kids would have much less chances to be treated. Like, they would die anyway. Which some of them did...
Gay.
The right choice, yes. The moral choice, no. Personally, I agree and would probably do the same thing but if the parents found out then you could expect a lawsuit. It’s a fine line.
@@kaylizzie7890 If the kids die you could expect a lawsuit either way, since the hospital was responsible for the outbreak.
@@kaylizzie7890 there is no such thing as an objective "morally good" choice. Morality is a spectrum. House made the logical best choice which is what's important.
This was the one caused by a sick nurse handing out stuff toys to babies, right?
The janitor
It was the sick nurse yes
It wasn't a nurse or a janitor. It was a elderly volunteer who made handmade teddy bears for the sick babies. They didn't think about her because she only came to the hospital every so often with more teddies to hand out.
gift shop employee - nurses got other things to do
A candy striper, I'm thinking. An elderly one.
Better question is what would house do about Foreman’s hair
It's gotta go.
Huh?
The hair is just a symptom of lupus
6 babies on a train track, 1 on the other track, do you pull the lever
House did
Except, the math in this case doesn't work like that.
Suppose there are 10 babies with the same disease.
Scenario 1- You give 2 of them different treatments and only 1 survives while the other 8 survive. That's a sure shot 90% success rate.
Scenario 2- You give them both the same treatment. In this case either both die and the other 8 survive or no one dies. So, there was actually a 50% chance that all 10 live or a 50% chance that 8 out of 10 live.
It would mathematically make more sense to take that chance. So, in my opinion, house was wrong.
Amanda Croft solution: never ride the train.
@@nhmooytis7058 this guy gets it
Two words, Kobayashi Maru ;)
@@kritav1111 Another angle is the simple fact that continuing as they were pretty much guaranteed both would die anyway; changing it could mean:
1. Perhaps both die anyway, because wrong treatment or too late.
2. Perhaps both survive because not killing their kidneys meant they got through it ok; or because they have time to treat the other one once they have more information.
It's partly about *not* knowingly allowing the first two to die without *trying* to figure it out, which definitely seems wrong to me, even if the legal or "moral" arguments point that way (the horror of the lawyer's part in this).
My boy house will pop 6 vicodon and get the cure in a revelation
When the chips are down, Cuddy will always defer to House to make the hard decisions she knows she wants to make but not the guts to make them...
House knows when to be serious
If someone made a special Covid-19 episode/movie of House, the ratings would be through the fucking roof. Hey Neflix/Hulu or even that new Peacock channel.. make it happen!
The guy @1:33 swabbing the air vents WITHOUT A RESPIRATOR ON made me facepalm so hard
This ep was really tough to watch. House decision was a tough one. But he didn't loose his cool. This maybe a show but being a parent. This was hard.
Daddy's Boy is another hard one to watch. I don't even have a kid and that one gets to me.
"so your condeming one of these kids to die based on random chance" better then condeming ALL of them to die based on random chance
If this show was still running in 2020 that would be golden
"You're condemning one based on random chance?". Well, if you choose to leave both on the same medicine, you're still risking condemning them both based on random chance. Assuming that one of the drugs will net a positive result, it's a choice of between one kid certainly dying and one kid certainly living versus both kids having a 50-50 chance to die.
Statistically, both situations force you to take a random chance, and both have the same expected outcome, but Houses way gives you more information you can use for the other kids (i.e. the reactions to two drugs individually). Houses solution could also expose the fact that neither of the chosen drugs work, which you can't learn with "keep both kids on the same drug" strategy.
This episode really showed what overthinking can do it was right in front of them
Late reply but yes. They never considered the staff and volunteers visiting rooms as a potential common factor
House would be that doctor who would cough on you and laugh during the covid outbreak. LOL
Lawyer: you can't do it.
House: hold my cane
Nice, I'm glad this show is still around.
This action is totally justified. In this situation they only have 5 options;
1. Take both babies off both drugs = they both die.
2. Keep both babies on both drugs = they both die.
3. Take both babies off one drug = they both have a 50/50 chance of life/death.
4. Take both babies off the other drug = they both have a 50/50 chance of life/death.
5. Take one baby off one drug, and the other baby off the other = they both have a 50/50 chance of life/death, and the doctors gain more medical information to know what they're dealing with to save the other babies.
It's a no brainer.
I miss house so much I watch it once a month the full 8 seasons I love the show I wish they could make a spin off or something
It's like flipping 1 coin for each baby instead of 1 for both. The chance is still the same for each. It's an emotional concern rather than a logical one.
3:56 Black Lightning
Thank God someone said it!!!!
at least "based on random chance" is fair and objective
No one ever said life was fair, sometimes you need to make hard decisions
What would House do during an epidemic? He'd stay home because there's no mystery. He'd probably have something snarky to say about people wearing masks, using copious amounts of sanitizer, etc.
*moisturiser lul
Why would he stay home? He's a doctor. He needs to work
Boris Uitham have you seen the show lol he hates work
@@mokshamahey Not entirely true.
He hates boring work. The interesting parts of his work seem to be one of the only things that keep him going.
Hugh Laurie already said what House would do.
I love how both cameron and chase both chuckled lol probably wasn’t a scripted line lol. I love house
Well, Cameron fancies House and Chase genuinely finds him amusing at this point. He hasn't been through years of abuse yet.
House's method was definitely the best, better than risk killing both kids
this video is really well made but the music is too loud and it's a bit hard to hear your voice because of it if you can turn it down a bit more then I think this video and others like it will be perfect!!
4:38 isn’t House legally right even though his argument isn’t? 1 patient has no right to the treatment information of another, even if both are convinced they have similar conditions
As long as the other patient isn't personally identified there's no breach. And in fact what you'd probably do is go to each parent individually and ask each of them to consent to information sharing as part of the treatment process and they'd probably agree.
Scott Matheson but the lawyer is arguing 1 patient is entitled to the treatment information of another without either agreeing to anything yet; not sure what the lawyer is basing this on
but realistically, we need doctors like house.
Whomever consulted for the show should be out there conducting research for new viruses.
@Muiri MacDuff Good job big-money corporations don't do most clinical research then.
Nothing to do with ambiguity. Research is FUNDED by large businesses, but the researchers work for academic or medical institutions.
Being the hospital lawyer has gotta be the most stressful job. and the most lucrative
The one young guy getting berated for his tie, meanwhile Wilson in the background apparently also not wearing a tie clip...
four to eight saying "first" lol
It must be exciting to be first when you are ten years old.
first
and still no one GAF
You can tell immidiately if it's a clip from the first season by the weird yellow lighting lol
It’s true that about half the hand gel dispensers are empty or broken 😂 My hands would get so dry on my internal medicine rotations during med school cause so many hand washings before and after each room during rounds
(ps I just started a channel about medicine, check it out pls)
I used to see doctors using sanitiser after visiting each bed BEFORE Covid19. Just wondering how many times they use them now 😂
Mine got that way working at a store during the pandemic. Woke up one night scratching my hands open.
Trudy Colborne ouch, I bet
I think it was technically an epidemic
:)) ofc , title s a joke
More or less endemic, because the virus only spread through babies on a particular country so yeah i guess it's an endemic.
0:18 House states it is an epidemic. Epidemics can become pandemics if it spreads.
To be honest, I dont see how house's way was worse than simply treat both baby the same, since that way they had 50% chance to die. In house's way he can save one for sure.
Stay home 24/7, take Vicodin, and play the piano.
The music that hits when house says yes i am is perfect for this scene
I mean, the other choice would be to just pick one antibiotic and risk all the kid's lives and not just one. Seems like the differential treatment is the actual safer option, despite the known outcome for one of them.
we need another House please.
*to the parents of a new born*
Doctor:"your daughters kidneys are shutting down"
Parent: "you're 18 years too early"
5:31
POV: Your daughter's kidneys are shutting down
House can literally mean talk and insult Covid 19 and then it will go away forever
It's a simple trolley problem.
This reminds me one philosophical crucial question : Morals Sentiments and Reason dilemma, What it’s the right thing to do 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽
The Trolley Problem from The Good Place
3:27 The terrible algebra of necessity.
My man house would pop two Vicodin and solve the whole thing
House is handling an epidemic which is different to a pandemic. But he is handling it in a similar fashion
It's the right option. It's still flipping a coin either way. If they take both kids off the wrong one both die. That's not a win.
Sometimes you have to cut off a hand to save an arm. This is the hard decisions. Someone has to make them. Doesn't mean they have to like them.
I could imagine him and dr Shaun Murphy having a conversation
I could see him getting scared af while House is trying to mess with him😂
I think they could learn a few things from each other...man he should play in an episode
Who dat
I would like them to solve a case that would be a hell of a episode
@@jd2192 The Good Doctor
He could punch the surviving kid in its little baby stomach later, to even things out.
House was predicting the future
If there's an equal probably it's either drug then House's decision does not not negatively affect the probability that each baby will survive and it ensures the survival of the other babies. House made the ethical decision.
They just settled on the Trolley Problem in ethics which any doctor is familiar with and has wrestled with. Death is inevitable in their field, sometimes you make the wrong call and there are consequences. But the presentation to the parents is simple in this case. One of two medications is killing all of the children. If their child is taken off, they could die, but as soon as the source of the original illness is discovered by the test, they can resume the other treatment and stop the one that is hurting them, if it happens in time. Their child has the potential to stop at the very least 5 others from dying, and possibly all the babies if action is taken quickly enough. All they need is 1 set of parents to agree, you take them off of 1 of the medications, it does not matter which in this case, and you study the outcome and determine what to pull and what to use as treatment. The kid gloves come off when dealing with possible outbreak and you have to make the best informed decisions in the moment. Sometimes a person gets run over by a train to save 5 people on another track. And sometimes those 5 people get run over because you made the wrong call. That is when reality conflicts with the hypothetical. The job of a doctor is to save as many lives and preserve quality of life to as many people as possible. Let legal sort out the aftermath, but let the professional life savers save lives instead of worrying about the legal fallout.
Wash your hands, people. And wear the (blank) mask.
They don't care enough about people to do that. If doctors can wrear them in a 12hr surgery, you can wear them to get groceries. Shit !y toddler is smart enough to know wear one. And was asking me why don't they have a mask.
"So your condemning which one of these kids gets to die based on random chance?" Well if you guess one antibiotic and your wrong they both die if you guess right they both live but by picking to take them off different ones one probably dies, to be honest I think that is the right call at least you know that one of them will survive
If the chosen antibiotic is even the issue, which is unknown. No knowledge, no ethical dilemma.
No one's blood sample is exactly alike. Find one that is a little different in one and use that as justification for one treatment.
Is it sad that I know where the disease came from? Volunteer passing out stuffed animals with a cold.
WWHD. The newest acronym for all hospitals
All these covid comments lmao. House's skill is figuring out which strange disease it is that's causing problems and using existing treatments on them, not curing new diseases while having a test kit do his actual job.
This is not a pandemic, this is an epidemic
Honestly he made the right call, you might call him a monster. but it's the logical decision and it's not like he's having fun and if either babie gets better, they stop the treatment on the other and treat it with the right medication. They might be doctors but they but they aren't all knowing, house is making tough choices that no one wants to make but is making for the sake of lives.
No matter what he did, assuming its truely 50-50, the average outcome of either option is the same: 1 child dead and one alive.
its either one dies or they all die
It's weird Cuddy hates his long tie but her own lab coat is wide open. Lab coat rule 101 always button up. Lol.
you can't save everyone, every time a baby is born, someone dies somewhere else
Y'all petty for just finally posting this clip 😂
Pop a Vicodin, toss his ball around and then proceed to fail then solve it at the last second
As impossible as this is. I still think it should have been left in the parents hands. Get them in the room together and explain what it going on. That there is a pandemic amongst these baby's. We gave them antibiotic 1 and 2 and it is curing the infection. The problem is that using both is causing liver failure. To leave both on is death by liver failure, to take both off is death by infection. Given the time frame we have 2 options. Either take them both off the same antibiotic, in which case there is a 50/50 both live or both die, or we take each baby off one, guaranteeing one dies, but guaranteeing the other lives. Regardless of the outcome the doctors will learn which is which and save the rest.
If I was House I would say _"what's the problem? Babies are easy to make, some couples even make them on accident!"_
He actually wants to save everyone, but he is also very rational. In this case he is thinking that if they give two of them different treatment, they will know the right treatment afterwards. Then they will hopefully manage to save 5 babies instead of having 6 dead ones for making the wrong choice for all of them. He is just trying to save most of them.
Even if it were my child. I would have agreed, the doctor does not know how my sick baby and another sick baby can get better.
"What the hell are you doing?" Immediately I wanted to respond, "Playing Mastermind". Anyone who has played the game will get it.
Loved the ending lol
We need Dr. BUFFER back on the case.
Not damaged enough for Cameron to marry it.
I truly wish this episode not to be a reflection on what happens in a hospital where peoples live ACTUALLY DEPEND ON THEM.
What would House do during a Pandemic?
Nothing.
Because the diagnosis is already there, House wont be interested.
Typical lawyers and politicians always preventing progress to be made cuz of them not willing to try out of will to try.
Figure out what the root cause is for whatever is making the person sick and treat it. Though in this clip, they talk about a bacterial infection and put a question mark next to virus. Also in this clip, they have no idea what the right treatment is so he wants to do a split treatment to see which is more effective.
wyatt must have gotten bored being a hospital attorney so he became an assassin for the company rofl
He’s more serious in this episode...
These are babies dying he himself says he likes babies well until they start talking that is in fact he says they are his favorite type of people
Thanks foremen for breaking the news to me about my daughter
Umm when his team was guessing that wasn’t chance? His solution at least provided some solution
Its covid 19 . Lack of breath. Coughing wheezing. It fits . Start on self quarantine
"No common personnel." Right.
0:50 The differential is so silly: virus? The kids are too sick?! Really, that’s how you exclude viruses? Lol loved this show when it was airing.
if it's a virus there is nothing that can be done in time anyway so there is no point in considering it. sounds logical to me.
Sometimes I feel like they pitch ideas just so they can get shot down. I don't believe that Foreman wouldn't know it couldn't be a parasite