By As you may know, “House” is a drama that deals with the medical practice of the highly anti-social Dr. Gregory House. Though this show remains highly popular, weekly it plays upon racism, ableism, heterosexism, class privilege and white privilege to drive home its neurotic message of the nothingness of being. Most relationships between the characters are dysfunctional and focus around whatever obsession “House” manifests on a particular week.
Ableism is a major feature in this medical drama. The main character himself is a differently abled person and this seems to function as justification for the writers to take creative license with the experiences of others. Each week Dr. House is presented with a medical mystery that he has to solve. The patient is minimized and the issue becomes the disease. Though this models much of what the medical establishment advises in an effort to reduce undue attachment, not all patients are as submissive and/or docile in their medical care as presented on House.
Each week a myriad of illnesses are manifested by different patients and yet ultimately the diagnosis usually comes down to two diseases; sarcoidosis or lupus. Using these two diseases as the “catch all” can be emotionally triggering and serves to reduce the difficult lives that those suffering with them must endure.
Illness does not end as projected on “House” after the disease is diagnosed; in fact, it is but the beginning of a very difficult journey, which can include intense pain and restructuring of one’s life. In the end, “House” will often prescribe prednisone as though he is offering a patient a glass of water. No discussion takes place on how harmful this drug is or the possible side effects that it can cause. Yet anyone who has been on prednisone for any length of time will usually attest to the fact that it is not a pleasant drug to take.
It seems that because lupus and sarcoidosis are diseases that mimic many others and do not immediately lead to death, the writers of “House” have determined that they can routinely rely upon them as solutions or possible solutions to each week’s medical mystery. Sarcoidosis in particular is not a disease that is well known outside of those inflicted with it. Many were not even aware that the disease existed until it was revealed last year that Bernie Mac died of complications because of it.
The general ignorance about the symptoms of sarcoidosis allows the writers to invoke creative licence, forgetting that some of their viewers are currently suffering from the disease. A point that is well worth noting is that both sarcoidosis and lupus are diseases that primarily attack African Americans, and yet week after week the patients that are diagnosed or hypothesized to have the diseases to have them are white.
We draw very few limits to what we term entertainment and, much like in the days of decadence of the Roman Empire, what we have chosen to view for the purposes of amusement often appeals to the baser instincts of humanity. Week after week, we tune in to “House” because we have determined that illness, suffering and disease qualify as a distraction from the monotony of our over scheduled lives.
The blood that is spilled is false and solutions are found within sixty minutes. Somewhere in the back of our minds we know that the images of suffering that we are viewing are real for someone. Though we watch with rapt attention, in the end, we are not infused with a greater sense of knowledge or even sympathy for those we know to be chronically ill. The purpose of “House” and shows of its ilk is not to challenge our views about disability or illness; it is simply to entertain. Those who it marginalizes or creates as invisible in the process are merely fodder that are easily forgotten in a world that seeks amusement in the pain and suffering of others.
Each time the able bodied person calls upon the differently abled to play “super crip” and rise above, we need not look father than shows like “House” to understand how it is that they have come to frame their understanding of chronic illness. If week after week we are presented with images of people suffering mysterious and exotic diseases who are miraculously cured, clearly those that are suffering daily are either not working hard enough to find a cure or they have given up. We have become accustomed to easy solutions and when we come across a problem that cannot be solved instantly, we blame rather than contemplate alternate solutions. “House” may be just a single show on a network, but it is the perfect example of the ways in which we “other” those with chronic illnesses.
There is no magic cure for either lupus or sarcoidosis. No brilliant doctor is suddenly going to alleviate the suffering of so many. Therefore if we feel compelled to recreate the circumstances of another’s life, we owe it to those that are afflicted with these diseases to make it as real as possible.
12 Comments
Thank you, this is such a good answer, or really set of answers, to those who say, “Oh come on, it’s just a TV show!”
Which is an odd thing for many of those who watch this particular show to say, since in addition to being entertained by it, they’re also patting themselves on the back for being smart enough to follow the medical-talk, and for “learning” from it. Sheesh.
While I think you’re right that House fails a lot, I don’t know that its ultimate message is “nothingness of being.” Gregory House is not a straightforward hero within the terms of the show (none of the cast is – they all act as foils for each other). On the contrary, his methods are often presented as unethical, and the precedence of “solving the mystery” is explicitly presented as unethical, as is the way House is constantly trying to get around informed consent and other patient rights (because he is most concerned, paradoxically, with the sanctity of life). I can think of many examples from the show where hospital facilities & doctors’ brains are presented as inadequate for patients (like the episode about the non-diabetic man of size), and docs’ “annoyed” responses to strong-opinioned patients are presented as wrong (this happens throughout many episodes – the doc’s assumptions that patients don’t know what’s good for them is more often than not wrong).
Also, lupus and sarcoidosis, while they’re often suggested, are rarely the ultimate diagnoses, and actually function, in the show, as the “easy, but wrong” diagnosis that doesn’t account for all the symptoms.
Also, there’s differences between shows starring the “first cast” and shows starring the “second cast.”
I would love to see a more in-depth discussion of the issues you raise, in particular episodes, since the show’s not perfect, and it’s important to point out when the show is wrong or irresponsible. But my problems aren’t with the show’s premise. For me, I was excited to see a differently abled character on tv (though I wish he were played by a differently abled actor, as much as I love Hugh Laurie), and I liked that there was a medical show that didn’t present the medical establishment, and the doctors in it as unequivocal heroes, that works at questioning moralistic attitudes about addiction, and that presents medical practice as an ethical minefield instead of as an uncomplicated way to “help people.”
Interesting article.
Bearing in mind I’ve not seen the show, nor do I really intend to, I’m curious about this: “The main character himself is a differently abled person and this seems to function as justification for the writers to take creative license with the experiences of others.” What disability does Dr. House have?
What disability does Dr. House have?
He had an infarction in his thigh muscle, leading to them having to do surgery to remove part of that muscle. (It’s actually more complicated than that, but that’s the basic story.) So he needs to use a cane to walk, and the surgery left him with a lot of exposed nerve endings, leaving him in a lot of pain, so he’s also addicted to Vicodin.
(They’ve actually been really inconsistent about how damaged the muscle actually is — there have been a few times when, through various drug treatments, he was totally or almost-totally pain-free, and one of those times, he was running several miles, making it look like the limp was totally the result of him guarding the muscle from pain, but the other time, he was still limping some, as if the muscle were weakened, but he was able to put more weight on the leg without pain.)
Part of House’s personality is that he isn’t Politically Correct- meaning, he’s going to be a racist, sexist, byist ass. It isn’t because of his leg- it’s been inferred in the show that he was like that before.
My mom, a nurse, watches this show with me, and she just laughs at some of the diagnoses they make. In reality, one hopes people don’t rely on a fictitious television show to give them medical answers. Ask a real doctor.
If people are that stupid, maybe they don’t deserve to be cured.
I’m just sayin’.
First, there are plenty of white people (including me) who get sarcoidosis, although there may be a higher prevalence among “blacks”.
Second – at least if he mentions sarcoidosis and puts people on prednisone every episode, more people will hear about the disease.
What annoys me is the way they act as if the person doesn’t go on prednisone “stat” they will die within 24 hours, but hey, that’s television.
I used to love the show but it is very repetitive.
“not all patients are as submissive and or docile in their medical care as presented on House.”
Umm. I don’t know how many episodes you have watches, but the Dr House’s own current condition stems partly from rejecting an operation simply because he did not want to be submissive or docile.
Furthermore,
Looking at the list of episodes at Wikipedia, Lupus and Sarcoidosis diagnosis are listed only one for each.
Illness does not end as projected on “House” after the disease is diagnosed; in fact, it is but the beginning of a very difficult journey, which can include intense pain and restructuring of one’s life. … Therefore if we feel compelled to recreate the circumstances of another’s life, we owe it to those that are afflicted with these diseases to make it as real as possible.
But, the reality’s often *awful.* Like, I understand that minimizing disease and illness can be very damaging but I can’t imagine trying to watch a show that was a perfectly accurate recounting of someone being miserable and incurable. I certainly wouldn’t like a show that was all like “oh I’m so depressed and crazy! What’s that, you have a pill for me? Better now!” but I would never watch a show that was just a series of failed attempts at treatment and a documentary of the patient’s slowly decreasing will to live either (I get plenty of *that* reality from some of my friends…)
It’s pure fantasy that there is a way to fix everything, but even if that fantasy isn’t for everyone it doesn’t mean it’s a useless one to have. I like my nihilistic reality mixed in with some (false) hope, yanno?
My favorite part of House is how no one has any long-term effects of seizures, anaphalactic shock, medication reactions, or surgery.
I was recently diagnosed with Lupus, and I sent out a text to all of my friends explaining to situation. I immediately got about 20 texts messages back with smiley faces and, “IT’S NEVER LUPUS! HOUSE SAYS SO!”
They didn’t realize I was serious. It took quite a few phone calls to convince them this was not a prank.
“and yet week after week the patients that are diagnosed or hypothesized to have the diseases to have them are white.”
It is usually just a disease they test for, and the lack of African-Americans is probably due to the low number within the area of Princeton itself.
I do think it’s quite humorous that the doctors on house constantly jump right to sarcoidosis as a hypothesis. But, as stated above, it is never actually a diagnosis. It is a mere tool to extend the time frame in which plot can unfold. And, yes, the disease that does, in the end, become the diagnosis is usually cured in a nonchalant manner, but I never really understand the disease nor the treatment anyhow.
But this show is not about the disease. Or the treatment. Or the patients who so carelessly get constantly misrepresented. In fact, all of this plays a secondary role to the main idea behind this whole convoluted drama.
Dr. House is anything but life-affirming. The complete opposite of what one might consider humane. In fact, he disregards and ridicules any aspect of humanity. He isn’t in medicine to save the lives of his patients, just as the show isn’t set out to publicize the diseases that affect them. He is obsessed with solving a puzzle. His utter and almost depraved control over every situation is imperative to his eventual diagnosis.
And, yet, what is it that eventually always leads to the diagnosis? Why is House so obsessed this sense of control anyway? And, what is the one thing above all else that Dr. House holds as true? There is no God.
In each epsiode, Dr. House is led the the diagnosis through a phenomenon. An utter coincidence that leads to an epiphany. Even though House makes such enormous efforts to control every aspect of the lives and situations that surround him, it is through luck, chance, destiny that he is able to find each solution. The emphasis is never on the solution (the treatment) or the problem (the disease). It is on the manner in which the solution is reached. House is obsessed with control because he is defying a grander controller. Underneath the gruesome images of human suffering and glossed-over methods of treatment, there is a recurring theme. And although the show does touch on complex issues of our culture in a crast manner–pain, sex, predjudice etc–it is merely to contrast the plights of humanity to the silent omniscient benevolence of the most important member of the cast.
The show is about religion, people.
I would not consider myself a religious person, nor would I a strong television critic, but I can spot a reoccurring themed-subplot when I see one. Especially when the main premise of the plot is so transparent. Honestly, it’s not even worth mentioning that sarciodosis is overly-hypothesized, or that the struggle for the victim of pain is not over when the show ends. It’s like you’re saying Baywatch isn’t a accurate depiction of lifeguards and minimizes the issue of drowning. Baywatch isn’t about lifegaurds! Or drowning! It’s about breasts. And rushing out to save lives from murky waters simply allows them to reveal their grand and impressive power. Even if Pamela Anderson never quite does the Heimlich quite right…
And to clarify, “differently abled people” is not “PC”, no matter how much you might think it rightiously clarifies between that and “normally abled persons.” People first language is always preferred in describing any population, whether it be people with dogs to people with disabilities. And yes disabilities is okay to say. A disability can be described as a condition that makes it more difficult to engage in the activities of daily life. No need to sugarcoat it. And to be honest, that category of people may be wider than you may think. The term I’ve just given isn’t too narrow is it? But differently abled implies that there is a standard level of ability, which is untrue. The range of disabilities is limitless. In fact, one might consider the human condition one big disability, especially when compared to its counterpart.