PHI2603-Disc5



This is a graded discussion: 30 points possible

due -

Discussion 5 18 18

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 1 of 22

In the episode, The Tyrant, Dr. Cuddy makes a decision about a Sitibi

woman who is brought into the hospital and told to perform a task. Dr.

Cameron appeals to Dr. Cuddy, but is overruled.

What is this decision?

Who is ethically correct in the situation, Dr. Cuddy, or Dr. Cameron?

Why do you think so?

Submission

Our discussions are a valuable opportunity to have thoughtful conversations

regarding a specific topic. You are required to provide a comprehensive

initial post with 3–4 well-developed paragraphs that include a topic

sentence and at least 3–5 supporting sentences with additional details,

explanations, and examples. In addition, you are required to respond

substantively to the initial posts of at least two other classmates. All posts

should be reflective and well written, meaning free of errors in grammar,

sentence structure, and other mechanics.

Grading

This discussion is worth 30 points toward your final grade and will be

graded using the Discussion Rubric. Please use it as a guide toward

successful completion of this discussion. For information on how to view the

rubric, refer to this Canvas Community Guide

(https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10577-4212540120) .

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 2 of 22

Search entries or author    

 Reply

Unread    Subscribe

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/125428)

Lindzi Allen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/125428)

Jun 30, 2023



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 3 of 22

 Reply

In the episode, The Tyrant, Dr. Cuddy makes a decision about a Sitibi

woman who is brought into the hospital and told to perform a task. Dr.

Cameron appeals to Dr. Cuddy, but is overruled. The decision that was

overruled was for the Sitibi woman to "donate" her plasma so the

character that was playing the President, could he get Convalescent

plasma for something called Lasa Fever. This route for treatment upon

further research, is actually still being studied so there is no true data to

say that it would have done the trick anyways.

In this situation, Dr. Cuddy, is the most ethically correct. The woman has

already signed the legal consent to donate the plasma and she is

standing by it. Yes, Dr. Camron does think that the woman is under

duress by her demeaner and obviously stressed body language in the

office, but unless there is proof that the woman was coerced then the

legal paperwork is all they need. 

I do find it interesting that even though Dr Chase saved the President

from being assassinated by a man that was posing as a hospital

employee, he still in the end was the one that killed the President. The

falsification of the Scleraderma testing using the woman from the

morgues blood resulted in the wrong medication being administered,

killing the President at the end of the episode. I thought that the Dr. 

Foreman would turn him in but at the end of the episode he was shown

to be burning the sign in sheet from the Morgue that was the only thing

that tied Dr. Chase to the morgue trip. This as he stated in the

conversation with Dr. Chase made him an accomplice to the crime.  

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)

Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 4 of 22

Wednesday

 Reply



 Good evening Lindzi, 

I found it interesting as well that Dr. Chase was the one to ultimately

kill President Dibala, even with the intent of protecting him from an

imposter in the facility. I believe once the line was crossed with

Cameron, Chase flipped scripts and went out of his way to deceive

everyone involved by falsifying information about the president being

diagnosed with Scleroderma, burning the papers of the deceased

who had the disease ( which is its chain of custody and i.d.

acknowledgments), in the trip heading to the morgue and back.

Creating more issues than just allowing man to die of natural causes

anyway. Quite the conundrum, if you ask me.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Thursday



You make a good point about what I think is the central ethical issue

in this situation --the idea that the woman may be (probably is) being

coerced into the treatment. I tend to agree with you, but I'm also

thinking that , while a signed consent form may be technically all they

need to go ahead with the procedure, it could easily be argued (and

probably is the case) that the woman is being coerced into signing

the consent form--so does the consent form make performing the

procedure any more ethically justifiable?

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 5 of 22

 Reply

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)

Madison Buehnemann (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)

Saturday

 Reply



Hey guys! 

 

Plot twist! What if Dr. Chase was actually protecting the imposter

from making a mistake that could have gotten him killed by the

Presidents bodyguards when Dr. Chase actually recognized the hero

he could be instead? Dr. Chase was never really against the imposter

(other than sneaking in as a patient) and he made him realize the

type of monster the president actually was. I think was truly the

turning point on Dr. Chases moral compass where he realized he had

the power to save an entire country from more violence. Furthermore,

his conversation with the president when Dr. Cameron didn't allow

him to die by withholding medication, showed that the president was

not likely to ever change based on his beliefs that the only way to "be

a man" was to enact violence and make everyone fear his country

enough to never attack them.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 6 of 22

Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)

Wednesday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 7 of 22

 Reply

 Good evening everyone, professor,

In the episode of House M.D., The Tyrant, Dr. Cuddy makes a decision

about a situation in regard to a Sitibi woman who was brought into the

hospital to perform a task in aid of President Dibala. The task at hand

was for the Sitbi woman to give her plasma under the assumption that

the president who is infected with "Lasa Fever" could be healed/ helped;

even with the lack of research or knowledge that the disease could be

cured at all. 

 Dr. Cameron's refusal to perform the task was overruled by Dr. Cuddy. Dr.

Cuddy explains to Cameron that there is legal documentation, consent

from the woman willingly wanting to give blood and she is urging to do

so, so therefore Dr. Cuddy would be in the right and ethically correct. Dr.

Cameron, however,  can see that there is a woman in distress and she

shows all the physical signs of a woman who is fearful and clearly being

forced into helping the president, out of the thought of her family being

killed...If there is no documentation available to show exploitation or foul

play, then there's nothing else that can be done.

 I feel as though ethics is on a delicate scale of taking

employees'/people(s) emotions into play, while also using a utilitarianism

and consequentialistic approach, meaning in the workplace you can

consider emotions so you help your employees feel heard and valued, but

ultimately what is right and wrong in a work setting should override the

emotional aspect as well regarding a workplace setting. Even though you

can blatantly see that Cameron did not want to assist in the donation of

blood to the dictator who has killed thousands, the woman from the

dictator's hometown insisted, and there is documentation showing she is

willing, so Dr. Cuddy had to make the difficult decision based on facts,

not emotion.

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 8 of 22

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Thursday

 Reply



You make a very good case for going ahead with this procedure

based on the signed consent and the woman's own verbal consent.

However, my guess is that an Ethics Board, or even a court of law,

would rule that the doctors reasoned opinion about the entire

situation overrules the formality of paperwork and a verbal consent in

cases like this. So if a doctor has reason to believe that such

coercion is occuring, they are obligated to not perform the procedure,

even if there is a verbal and/or signed consent for--after all, a person

could (and probably was, in this case) be coerced into signing the

form and verbally consenting....cases like this also arise with abused

children and domestic partners, where despite being told otherwise

by the possible victims, healthcare workers are obligated to report

these cases to law enforcement and/or DCF

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)

Thursday

 Reply



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 9 of 22

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Yesterday

 Reply



Hi Ansley,

I agree that ethical issues are more delicate in a professional context.

However, I believe that in a medical situation, you get to witness

individuals in their most undeveloped states. This is why there are

numerous rules and regulations in place for these things because you

need to be on the lookout for things like abuse, coercion, and

psychological components. Therefore, I would assert that I think Dr.

Cameron acted in this situation with the highest ethical standards.

Doctors shouldn't be able to ignore a patient who is exhibiting blatant

signs of compulsion because of paperwork.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)

Madison Buehnemann (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)

Saturday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 10 of 22

 Reply

In the episode Tyrant, Dr. Cuddy makes a (insert the ethic choice that is

sacrifices another for the sake of the group)/protecting the hospital from

physical retaliation from the African Government, in regards to ordering

Dr. Cameron to take the blood from the Sitibi woman.

In my opinion, Dr. Cameron had the right to deny the procedure based on

her suspicions of coercion. I believe that she should have taken it higher

than Cuddy when she was denied based on medical protocols for these

types of situations where reporting was necessary, even with a

consenting adult. I do however see why Dr. Cuddy felt she was protecting

the woman from retaliation, however, I believe she inadvertently just

sacrificed more lives in order to protect 1 based on the allegations and

lawsuits against the president for genocide. These types of situations

have specific procedures to ensure that the doctors are able to withhold

their Hippocratic oath by providing medical services, while protecting

other from crimes such as these. Even if that board of decision makers

feel like she should be able to donate her plasma, This whole episode

had me on the edge of my seat!

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 11 of 22

 Reply

Hi Madison,

I agree that Dr. Cameron has the choice to decline the procedure, but

I don't believe Dr. Cuddy has the right to decide whether to treat a

patient because of retaliation or genocide. Doctors are there to help

people survive no matter what they have done. All other

considerations on why a person should remain alive aren't left up to

the doctors, even if it can be a difficult line to walk and a great burden.

Only in delaying medical care due to warning indications of

compulsion, which is unethical, was Dr. Cameron correct. Dr. Cuddy

faltered by basing her course of action on reprisal. You are absolutely

right that this episode had me on the edge of my seat. Everything is

extremely difficult.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 12 of 22

 Reply

Hi Madison,

I understand why you feel Dr. Cuddy sacrifice more lives than she

saved but at the end of the day, doctors signed an oath to give care

to whoever ever no matter their title or actions made in the world. I

honestly believe that saving President Dibala would have been bad

for his country and the Sitibi people but I don't feel like it would have

been ethically right to let him die either. Why change your character

and your morals just because of a madman? Wouldn't that make you

just like him by letting him die?

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/125147)

Lauren Callaway (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/125147)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 13 of 22

 Reply

In the episode The Tyrant, a Sitibi woman is brought in who has Lassa

fever by President Dibala (who was just been subpoenaed for human

rights violations like genocide) accompanied by what appears to be a

high ranking military official who presents a consent form for the woman

to donate blood and help treat President Dibala. The men and woman are

insisting that they all consent and agree and are wanting to help cure

President Dibala. Dr. Cameron feels as if the woman is being coerced

into donating blood so she declines to draw blood, so she bring the

woman to Dr. Cuddy's office to explain and ask her opinion on what they

should do. 

This is a though one for me to pick a side honestly. I believe Dr. Cameron

is ethically correct, when we learned about the Hippocratic Oath one of

the oaths was "I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any

voluntary act of impropriety or corruption..." Dr. Cuddy was acting out of

best interest of avoiding corruption by declining to draw blood in my

option. While the woman did sign a consent form to donate blood it was

seemingly coerced by high ranking people from her country with corrupt

power as Dr. Cuddy mentions in their meeting  "I'd rather have a needle

prick on my subconscious than the death of her family members"

implying if they don't draw the woman's blood its possible her family

faces retaliation I believe Dr. Cuddy was morally correct in valuing the

womans family's lives if she doesn't donate blood and honoring the

signed consent form. 

I would be interested in knowing if this case got escalated up to a ethics

board how it would be viewed and decided upon. I see how the blood

donation consent form is a legal contract and you should honor that, but

a legally binding contract gets void if someone was coerced into signing. 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 14 of 22

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Yesterday

 Reply



Hi Lauren,

Great counterpoint to the Hippocratic Oath, I also agree that Dr.

Cameron was ethnically right due to her knowing she was being

coerced but I honestly think neither was wrong if we remove the

ethnicity from the argument. They both had valid points on why Ama

should or shouldn't give up her blood it's just Dr. Cuddy had to make

a hard decision and find a reason to believe that it was the right one,

due to a consent being signed. 

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 15 of 22

 Reply

Hello Lauren,

While I choose the opposite standpoint, your take is definitely

compelling. It's interesting that you used the Hippocratic Oath to

back up your point, especially since it pertains to coercion. I would

also be interested to know if  it would be viewed by a board, I

definitely feel that if the board knew there was coercion involved,

especially how the woman came off to Dr. Cuddy and Dr. Cameron,

they would deny it or something.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 16 of 22

 Reply

In the episode, The Tyrant, the decision that Dr. Cuddy made involving the

Sitibi woman, Ama, was to give her plasma to the president Dibala over

her former country. She had overcame Lasa Fever 2 years prior and they

were under the impression that the president also had this illness. Dr.

Cameron appealed to this decision because Ama was exhibiting signs of

coercion even though they had signed paperwork. However Dr. Cuddy

overrules this because she didn’t want to be the reason Ama family died.

It would be challenging to get consensus on which choice was morally

right given the two factors of coercion and retaliation. But I think Dr.

Cameron acted morally appropriately in this circumstance. A doctor is

expected to report any suspicious actions that have the potential to

impair or influence a person or their rights. So, even while I understand

Dr. Cuddy's desire to shield the family from additional harm, I would say it

isn't within her power to assess whether or not that circumstance was

more important than another's rights.

Giving treatment to Dibala is something that was very opinionated upon

the group and a skeptical choice to make. So the whole episode was full

of ethical questions and decisions. Everyone wanted to do what they felt

was the right decision. While Dr. Cameron decision may not have been an

unbiased one, it was one that protected the Sitibi woman rights. Dr. Cuddy

shouldn’t have overturn her appeal.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 17 of 22

 Reply

Hello Quinteria,

Your viewpoint highlights the tension between protecting individual

rights and considering potential consequences, such as retaliation

against Ama's family.  Dr. Cameron's stance is grounded in her

commitment to upholding patient autonomy and safeguarding

against coercion. Reporting suspicious actions aligns with her duty to

advocate for the well-being and rights of her patients.

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 18 of 22

 Reply

A Sitibi woman, Ama signed a consent form, giving Dr. Cameron

permission to retract blood from her and give it to President Dibala.

President Dibala's reason for this is that it's more effective for someone

who has the antibodies that recovered from Lassa fever than Ribavairin.

Dr. Cameron refuses to do the procedure because she feels Ama is being

threatened to give her blood for the sake of her family's life. Dr. Cuddy

approves the procedure because it has been legally accepted and she

would rather have a blood transfusion safely coerced than the death of

her family members.

President Dibala boldly admitted his hatred for the Sitibi people because

of the lives they had taken twenty years ago in his country. He also fears

that they would "happily do it again" and he wants to impose order by

preventing the cause of a Sitibi rebellion by striking fear and command

into their lives. Ethically speaking Dr. Cameron was right for denying the

blood transfusion but in the hospital, doctors deal with the battle of law

and morals. For example a Do-Not-Intubate (DNI) order form that

patients sign. Doctors have to put their morals aside when dealing with

certain situations because, in the end, it is all up to the patient on how

they would like to proceed with the care of their health. 

Dr. Cameron was ethnically right because she put her moral principles

before her duty as a physician. She knew that it was wrong for President

Dibala to threaten Ama to give her blood and she was willing to risk her

job over her integrity. Dr. Cuddy also knew that it was wrong but after

consulting with one another Dr. Cameron realized Dr. Cuddy had a valid

point to rather proceed with a procedure that could be safely evaluated

than get her family killed over what she believed was right and what was

wrong. 

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 19 of 22

(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)

Yesterday



7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 20 of 22

 Reply

In the episode, The Tyrant, Dr. Cuddy makes a decision about a Sitibi

woman who is brought into the hospital and is told to donate blood to

president Dibala. Everyone is under the assumption that the president

has "Lassa Fever", the Sitibi woman, Ama, recovered from Lassa Fever

two years ago and plasma from her blood has the antibodies to help

him. 

Dr. Cameron is presented with a consent form from Ama and Ama giving

verbal consent. She brings it up to Dr. Cuddy saying that she refuses to

take Ama's blood but is overruled by Dr. Cuddy. Dr. Cameron sees signs

of discomfort and pleading in Ama's eyes, making her believe that

coercion is involved. In this situation it's hard to tell ethically correct, Dr.

Cuddy may have considered the overall well-being and best interests of

the patient, along with other factors such as limited resources or legal

obligations. On the other hand, Dr. Cameron's appeal suggests that she

believes the decision may be compromising the patient's autonomy or

violating her rights. However, I believe Dr. Cuddy is more ethically correct

in the situation.

Dr. Cuddy is a woman who puts her patients care and well-being first. She

also tries to avoid conflict, she mentions, "I'd rather have a needle prick

on my subconscious than the death of her family members," when talking

with Dr. Cameron about Ama. In other words, she rather keep president

Dibala happy and prevent any harm that may come to Ama's family by

just having Ama donate her blood. Denying treatment to Dibala would be

a violation of medical ethics and the duty of care, and coming from

someone like Dr. Cuddy who prioritizes medical ethics and the principle

of beneficence, puts care over comfort.

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 21 of 22

7/10/23, 1:25 AM Page 22 of 22