House episode 6-7
Nov. 10th, 2009 10:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deelaundryFor once, I mostly want to reflect on the serious in this episode. It really bothered me that they kept calling what Wilson did "murder." He didn't murder (kill with intent) anyone; he provided the means for someone to commit suicide. That's still something you (and he) can debate the right and wrong of, but it's not murder.
What Chase did, on the other hand, is murder. First-degree murder, by US law: "murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation." Is linking it to Wilson's almost-euthanasia intended to be a comparison, downplaying what Chase did, or a contrast, highlighting what Chase did? I don't know, and that bothers me.
It's also interesting that Chase, who committed the more serious act by US law (and by my own moral judgment, although that's less relevant to the discussion) is trying to avoid taking any consequence, while Wilson with the less serious, less culpable act is trying to take on more consequence than, I can argue and House does argue, he deserves.
Does this mean that Wilson is more moral than Chase? I don't think so. I think they both went to extremes and tied themselves into knots due to their own pathologies. Wilson had the benefit of a good friend getting through to him (albeit in an underhanded, twisted way) and being there for him. Chase has been avoiding letting the one who's closest to him be there for him, and I think it's because he knows what the priest told him is right. He won't feel he deserves absolution until he both faces the enormity of what he did and accepts the just consequence of the murder he has committed.
What Chase did, on the other hand, is murder. First-degree murder, by US law: "murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation." Is linking it to Wilson's almost-euthanasia intended to be a comparison, downplaying what Chase did, or a contrast, highlighting what Chase did? I don't know, and that bothers me.
It's also interesting that Chase, who committed the more serious act by US law (and by my own moral judgment, although that's less relevant to the discussion) is trying to avoid taking any consequence, while Wilson with the less serious, less culpable act is trying to take on more consequence than, I can argue and House does argue, he deserves.
Does this mean that Wilson is more moral than Chase? I don't think so. I think they both went to extremes and tied themselves into knots due to their own pathologies. Wilson had the benefit of a good friend getting through to him (albeit in an underhanded, twisted way) and being there for him. Chase has been avoiding letting the one who's closest to him be there for him, and I think it's because he knows what the priest told him is right. He won't feel he deserves absolution until he both faces the enormity of what he did and accepts the just consequence of the murder he has committed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-10 03:49 pm (UTC)See, that's the thing. If they wanted to make a comparison, why didn't they have Wilson actually administer the drugs to the patient, the way Cameron did in "Informed Consent"? Then we could debate greater good and patient consent and all the things that would make that a fine line. Instead, they didn't draw a fine line, they drew a thick one -- a "Great Wall of China," to quote House.
Hm.