Polite Dissent's Morrison agrees that House, like most medical shows, doesn't give the whole picture of real-life medicine. "It’s true that there is an art to medicine and most of the television shows are good at showing that, but the art is built on a solid foundation of science, and this is the part most television shows have problems with."
Even if he could shut off his doctor brain while watching, Morrison's reviews cause him to look for errors, and some of his commenters are fans who seem to do the same thing. "There’s certainly fun – or at least an enjoyable challenge – in looking for errors, at least in a certain segment of viewers."
He doesn't believe that detracts from the show, however. "It is possible to watch the show on two different levels: the fan and the doctor. The Star Trek series has had nit-picking fans for years. There’s even been several Nitpicker’s Guide to Star Trek published – but remember that the books are not written by critics, but by fans of the show."
Some doctors might not be able to see past the fictional medicine of the show, but many of Sanders' colleagues love it and long to be like House. "Not the rudeness," she specified, "but they'd like to be someone who's completely committed to figuring out what's going on. The biggest difference between every other doctor and House? House has one patient at a time."
Continuing her take on the metaphorical medicine of the show, she added: "House represents how much time we spend trying to figure out the things that don't necessarily make sense or fall into our expectations."
Given that House and other fictional shows often give an inaccurate picture of real-life science, it's not surprising that some scientists have conflicted feelings about the message television sends about their profession.
Structural biologist Dr. Aled Edwards is a consultant on Canadian sci-fi show ReGenesis, and while he finds it difficult to watch most popular science-based shows, he also thinks expecting accuracy from them is not realistic. "It's almost like watching a cartoon, where Batman or Superman or House is the same. When I watch Superman, I don't get upset: 'Hey, men can't fly!' When I watch those shows, I turn off my scientific brain. I say I'm watching mindless entertainment here. Because if I put on my scientific brain, I'd get upset. So I just watch it and think this is not science, this is not medicine, this is television."
Article comments
1 - Namaste
Thanks for the interviews, DK. It's good to get the point of view of the people who are medical professionals out there -- and who have nitpicked with the best -- and to know that they appreciate the difference between reality and entertainment as well. I do agree that it's sometimes a wide gulf, but I always say that if I want reality, I'll watch Discovery Health (and even reality is heavily edited).
2 - Diane Kristine
Hi Namaste, good to "see" you. I agree, and it's funny that we seem to expect more from a medical drama than a cop show or show set in an office, for example. There's not a lot of accuracy about any workplace you see on TV.
3 - Mary K. Williams
This was very, very good Diana. Glad you're keeping track of the good Dr. still.
4 - Phillip Winn
If work environments were realistically portrayed on television, what would be the point of watching? We could just go to work!
Real-life hospitals are fascinating at first, then dreadfully boring most of the time. A TV show has to remain interesting 17 hours a year for as many years as it can. I've watched 79 episodes of House and I'm still interested. I can't imagine still being fascinated after 55 hours of observing a real hospital.
5 - Karen Smith
Thank you Diane for a well written, very insightful look at the BEST show on television. Great job!