Talk:Maternity (House)

Television: Episode coverage / House Mid‑importance

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This redirect is supported by the House task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	A production section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section discusses the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.

Untitled[edit]

I show this episode in my Ethics class to demonstrate a dilemma between consequentialist and kantian moral theories. When House prescribes different drugs to each baby, he's acting according to consequentialism, and others embody other systems (namely, Kant's deontology, and Aristotle's virtue ethics). --Llamabr 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see a dilemna. What you said sounds interesting, can you elaborate? To me, what House did seems to be the most rational decision to have made to save the most number of lives, given the information known at that time. 59.92.43.92 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by rational. What he did was best, according to a consequentialist ethical system, which suggests that an action is right as it tends to promote the greatest amount of happiness, or pleasure. But, according to a Kantian, or deontological ethical system, his decision was morally wrong, because it treated a person as a means, rather than an end unto him/herself. That is, in making his decision, he didn't take into consideration the fundamental human rights of the baby who died -- instead, he treated him/her as a means toward some end. The fact that there was an argument in his office is good evidence that there was some moral dilemma.Llamabr 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Production Inconsistency[edit]

After the epidemic is proven, they gather in House's office and note that the 4 babies were in born in different rooms and placed in different rooms. They note that there were "no common personnel", yet at the end of the episode it shows that an elderly woman was responsible by carting toys to the babies. This meant that there were common personnel.66.41.44.102 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busted. Llamabr (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the moronic part here is that the writers decided to let everyone forget the volunteers, not considering them "personnel" - along with assuming that a sick volunteer working at the baby ward wouldn't be sent right back home. But the show has lots more of this specific kind of bad writing, like the common "Relatives have never heard of drug interaction and routinely smuggle meds to a patient and hospital staff never notices" --Echosmoke (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]