What still puzzles me about the diagnosis in The Tyrant is that scleroderma was House's diagnosis, so you'd think it would be the right one. So is House saying murder is better than it looking like HE had the wrong diagnosis?
I'm not sure if it's about House specifically being wrong about the diagnosis. I think in House's mind, a misdiagnosis, no matter who makes it, is worse than murder. It has nothing to do with his personal image, but it has everything to do with solving the puzzle.
Yes, that sounds right. House wants to know the truth, use his unique gifts to the max, and so he has spent his life building up this fantastic store of knowledge and mixed in how his observations have used that knowledge which has resulted in a vast matrix of patterns that he can apply to presentations and diagnose ever more quickly and accurately. Any piece of that informational web that is faulty throws the whole thing in doubt so being sure about the current diagnosis (and not thrown off by human or other error) means his next diagnosis should be that much faster and less prone to error. One thing about House, he is always, always learning. Maybe not the same thing everyone else is learning, but learning nonetheless.
Does anyone else think Chase was completely justified in what he did? I think House isn't indifferent; he's in complete agreement with Chase. House is all about breaking whatever rules necessary to do what he sees as good in the world. Usually this involves a duty to the patient. But in the case of this patient it was Chase's duty to kill him in order to save thousands. House would say that you can't hide beneath the veneer of medical ethics, if you have the chance to make that kind of change in the world then it is your responsibility.
I would say that unless House actually says he would have done the same thing, he's in the same gray area as many of us, uncertain what exactly he would have done under the circumstances (recall he wasn't allowed contact with the patient) and unwilling to pass judgment. I hate to try and read anyone's mind, especially his.
As to House's attitude on murder better than misdiagnosis ... he's never had any problems with having other people come up with the right diagnosis. He doesn't have to be the one with the answer every time. (He certainly didn't hesitate to praise Kutner in "Locked In" for one example.) He doesn't care about credit, as long as the answer is achieved by someone.
Not completely justified, but it sure is an ethical grey area. Pragmatically, yes he is justified, it's clearly the greater good and he saves thousands, maybe millions of innocent lives. But, ethically then, does he damn himself because he has done the exact deed he condemns the dictator for? To bring him down he had to do a cold-blooded murder. If I had to take a side I guess I would take Chase's because it is for the greater good, but it would take some real bravery to do it, because he risks everything he values including his own peace of mind.
Does anyone else think Chase was completely justified in what he did?
I would think him mostly justified...if he could somehow be sure that the situation would resolve itself for the better without the dictator in place. In real life, things don't tend to resolve themselves that cleanly. Dictators generally don't exist because that one guy is just evil, there's a whole complicated knot of factors that allow them to rule as they do. There were several possible outcomes - he could be replaced by a similar tyrant, or a more hardline figure could come into power, or a coup could happen that would kill even more people. Yes, the country's government does seem to have come to a more peaceful solution - but unless Chase was very well-versed in the political and socioeconomic climate of that country, he was making one hell of a crapshoot.
I don't think there's any doubt that Chase was killing an Omar al-Bashir (or an Idi Amin), not a Nelson Mandela. I understand why he did it. I sympathize with him. I think it was an act of bravery. But none of that changes the fact that it was murder.
The question is whether it is acceptable to commit a murder if doing so will undoubtedly prevent future atrocities. And that's a question that has been occupying philosphers for centuries. I don't think we'll settle it here.
