Fascinating analysis!

There's a corresponding podcast with a medical doctor on board and the medical aspects are covered for accuracy, presentation and reality-based details. The show gets high scores in that arena as well. Like you, I had not considered the legal perspective. So, this was enlightening and good to know that the writers get high scores in that realm as well.

Which is a long-winded way to saying that if you enjoy medical dramas, The Pitt is a high quality series with interesting characters and great acting.

It's the tall building you see in the opening credits, and occasionally in outdoor scenes during the show. I know the episodes aren't actually taped at AGH, but I love how my city is framed. Pittsburgh hasn't been a "city of steel mills" for over 40 years. The Pitt shows real people's stories in their daily lives, when things go wrong and someone is injured or becomes sick. We're given perspective on how today's medical professionals are trained in their internships, and the way it's done in a real teaching hospital. It's a great show on so many levels.

seems to think there were not the same caliber of legal consultants on the Pitt, as there are highly skilled medical consultants. And he seems at times to be addressing this from the position of hospital attorneys rather than physician's own defense attorneys should an issue have arisen over a decision made. The positions are absolutely NOT always aligned and I can assure you that the hospital attorneys do NOT always have either the patient or the physician's best interest directing their decisions. If you want an example, the black vs. white aspect of his assessment that Langdon could NOT treat Louie because of his ethical breach (stealing his Librium) is spot-on. But, legally, there can be wiggle room in at least some states that grant the patient the ability to KNOWINGLY and after fully being informed of the ethical conflict, making the informed and documented decision to allow that doctor/HCW to continue. I find it somewhat irksome that this lawyer does not acknowledge that.

Still he did a great job of showing how HCWs and hospitals CAN overrule denial of care decisions by parents legally by either a court emergency injunction (did not detail) but more likely the acquiescence of ONE parent--as long as there is not a custody decision favoring the other parent.

Still, I found it interesting--even if I found a couple of quibbles and aspects he failed to address which were pertinent. As one who grew up surrounded by uncles who went into law (defense, prosecution, and one judge) and their Sunday dinner discussions at my grandmother's table, I did enjoy his commentary. It underscored the fact that lawyers seek overwhelmingly to turn issues into absolutes, while in medicine, we have to deal with the "shades of gray" in diagnoses, treatment, prognosis and yes, legal issues in protecting our patients. These differences can be paramount in the approach and cause even the best of both fields to be at "loggerheads" on issues and manifest as a genuine lack of respect and disdain in both directions. The latter can be really "toxic."