S04.E15: Waiting

[helenamonster]

Quote

After a political protest turns violent, the team races to save two young gunshot victims.

Original airdate: 4/26/21

[Annber03]

Well. So much for thinking the episode was going to end on a happy note! At least the kids survived, so yay for that :). I was so sure at least one of them was going to die. I really liked how Lea interacted with the mothers throughout the episode, trying to keep the peace as she did. 

So Park wants to end things with Morgan. Hm. I think his reasons make sense, though. Will be interesting to see how Morgan deals with that. 

As for the debate Claire and Asher were having, I'll simply say I'm with Claire on this one and leave it at that. 

[Diana Berry]

A network show actually acknowledging there are two political parties and citizens have the inherent right to vote for who they choose?  It’s a miracle.

[SunnyBeBe]

I wasn’t impressed.  Maybe, I missed something, but why were there two injured white children?  Maybe, I need to rewatch this episode.  

[Driad]

Did anyone catch what the demonstration was about and why two opposing groups were apparently close together?

When they first said that Mason needed a lot of blood, I wondered why they didn't ask his mother to donate.  Maybe I missed a line about her not matching him (he was Rh negative so maybe she was positive?).

[KaveDweller]

10 minutes ago, Driad said:

Did anyone catch what the demonstration was about and why two opposing groups were apparently close together?

When they first said that Mason needed a lot of blood, I wondered why they didn't ask his mother to donate.  Maybe I missed a line about her not matching him (he was Rh negative so maybe she was positive?).

All they said was the demonstration was about proposition 260 (or something like that). I assume it was intentional that they didn't say what it was about or which side the two mothers were on. I liked all the interaction with the mothers and Lea in the waiting room, it was well done.

I am really glad they saved both boys. But of course now it is time for the pregnancy drama.

I agree with Claire's politics, but I think it was inappropriate for her to try and shame Asher for how he voted at work. If they were friends hanging out at a bar, argue politics all you want. But not at work, especially since she is superior to him.

[thuganomics85]

Well, I guess after all the social commentary these past few episodes, someone finally decided to just say "Screw it, lets go all out!", and did a full-blown political story, where someone actually voted for the guy who should remain nameless and not be considered a villain by the end of it.  I'm... not going to really dive into all of that, although I will say that I do believe that a candidate's stance on Israel has been a big factor for some voters, so I guess I can find it believable that Asher would have voted that way.

On the other hand, it was strange that they were go cagey and mysterious about what was actually being protested/demonstrated in this episode.  The show has never shied a way from that before, so I wonder why they kept mum this go around?  I guess they didn't want anyone to spend time on the actual issue, and just wanted focus on the whole "two people with opposite view points come together in the end" thing?  At least both of the kids survived.  For a second, I thought that the one who looked worse at first would somehow live, while the other who started out on better footing would suddenly die, but I guess they were in a generous mood!  Italia Ricci and Elizabeth Rodriquez where both great as the moms.

Did like that Park was the one who got the big last minute discovery moment, and helped save the day.  Will Yun Lee did great work as always.  And, of course, he seems to be serious about this Heather character and officially ends things with Reznick, which is continuing to make her question everything and be shocked to discover she might have something resembling actual feelings for him!

That was certainly a way to end things for this episode!  I guess we'll find out how that all plays out in two weeks!

[statsgirl]

I think that the lack of clarification about the protest was so that the audience did not choose sides based on that but rather on the characters and story.

I thought that Italia Ricci did a great job as Taryn (the mother of the boy who got shot in the head). A lot of subtlety and feeling. Elizabeth Rodriquez was good too but her role demanded less.

That said, the writing in this was pretty bad for all that David Shore was one of the writers. He's usually much better. As soon as the motherd started fighting, at chez statsgirl we said "They will be bonding by the end of the episode" and of course they were. There was nothing deep or enlightening here, jusy a typical TV medical show for all its potential.

I'm glad Park got the win. It's time.

I also liked Taryn getting upset and saying "I based my medical decision on your feelings for your boyfriend. " I suppose now that Shaun is invested in the baby, Lea can have her medical crisis.

Asher is gone for me. Not because of the decision that he made but the way that he made it. It lacks cognitive complexity.  I cannot with people who think only of their own selves or group.

Both of those kids are going to require a ton  of rehab. The show shouldn't have glossed over that.

When I was an undergrad, I worked part time as a ward clerk in the ER of a large hospital in a major metropolitan city. I never once saw the surgical staff line up in the ER waiting for the ambulances to arrive even when there were multiple traumas.

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

  Maybe, I missed something, but why were there two injured white children? 

I assume to keep it on the story rather than make it about race or discrimination. They were also both boys and both with mothers I guess to not have that affect it either.

[greekmom]

7 hours ago, statsgirl said:

Asher is gone for me. Not because of the decision that he made but the way that he made it. It lacks cognitive complexity.  I cannot with people who think only of their own selves or group.

But wasn't that how alot of people voted back in 2016? I mean they disliked the opposing candidate and the one they voted for had 1 or 2 points they agreed with?  While I understand what Claire was getting at, I still think that a) this was not the time or place to have that discussion and b) you cannot shame someone for how they voted.  To me Claire was shaming Asher for voting the way he did instead of having a constructive discussion on the voting system in the States and the two candidates.

I honestly thought that 1 of the two kids were going to die.  Lea keeping the peace between the moms was the only good thing about Lea. 

End game is Morgan and Park. Park wants more but Morgan isn't ready. It will happen.

 

[Granny58]

1 hour ago, greekmom said:

But wasn't that how alot of people voted back in 2016?

that's how a lot of people vote every time.  I appreciated Asher's stance that, basically, we're entitled to our differences and let's all just get along.  Finally.  

[CatLady]

I thought the episode was interesting for many reasons.

However, I will say that I do not like how some writers on tv inject politics into everything.  I don't watch scripted drama to be lectured or "informed" as to how I should think or feel about politics. Politics are personal, imo. There are numerous shows, publications where people may be informed and educated about political issues.   I watch dramas as escapism from all that.  The fact that individuals have the right to choose was included in the script made it a little more palatable.  Asher is a sensitive and caring person, as is Claire but I found her attack on him during surgery to be outrageous.  Never mind that the doctors literally were in the midst of trying to save a child, it was just totally inappropriate. Break room discussions of that type are another matter, the operating room, no.

As to the protest, I think what the issue was is irrelevant to what happened.  Some people are so entrenched in what they believe that they will do anything to silence the opposition, even shoot children.  That is lunacy, which I think was the point.  People can believe different things or want different things and still not kill each other or hate each other.  As irritating as I find Lea at times, she was compassionate and quite unselfish in this episode.  Staying to help those two mothers from opposing sides through this terrifying ordeal was quite wonderful.

Italia Ricci is so lovely.  I have not seen her very much since "Chasing Life".  She was in a couple of Hallmark movies I think.  Didn't watch "Designated Survivor" so missed her in that.  She's a good actress.

Good episode.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by CatLady

[Granny58]

53 minutes ago, CatLady said:

I will say that I do not like how some writers on tv inject politics into everything.  I don't watch scripted drama to be lectured or "informed" as to how I should think or feel about politics.

I'm with you 100% on this.  I'm so fed up with it.  I'm tempted to just watch Dr. Kildare episodes.  (if I could find them).  Maybe Marcus Welby.  

[statsgirl]

7 hours ago, greekmom said:

But wasn't that how alot of people voted back in 2016? I mean they disliked the opposing candidate and the one they voted for had 1 or 2 points they agreed with?

Yes. Claire reacted since the show gave the impression that other of those policies adversely affected her.

Claire was wrong to get upset with him in the surgery. Andrews, their boss, was even more wrong to coolly challenge Claire with his NRA card. Wrong because they were in surgery, wrong because the power was all his.

I was willing to give Asher time to grow on me.  But he doesn't have cognitive complexity, which I already knew, and he doesn't have abstract empathy (i.e he has empathy for the patient in front of him but doesn't use his imagination to extend it to others).  As a character, he's a repeat of Glasses who has been on Grey's Anatomy for three seasons, a slight, young Jewish man just discovering his sexuality, but with a quarter of Eli's charm. I wish Claire didn't have always to take care of him.

[Avabelle]

4 hours ago, CatLady said:

Asher is a sensitive and caring person, as is Claire but I found her attack on him during surgery to be outrageous. 

I thought it was in character. Claire is sensitive but it’s like she thinks she’s the only that cares about anything or anyone and therefore her opinion is the bottom line.

On a superficial note Lea is beautiful but I feel they’ve really fuglied up her wardrobe this season.

[hula-la]

15 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

All they said was the demonstration was about proposition 260 (or something like that). I assume it was intentional that they didn't say what it was about or which side the two mothers were on.

As a Canadian, when I watch the US channels during your election season, I play a game called "guess the proposition". We see the ads for and against props and I try to ascertain from the ads what the actual propositions are. Half the time I never do figure it out (and am not about to go research what they are).

[tennisgurl]

I guess I get why they kept what was actually being protested and what happened that led to the boys getting shot ambiguous, because they wanted to make it more about general political differences and seeing past them to our mutual humanity and such, and not have it be one issue or another that viewers could have personal feelings about which could affect how they see the moms. I did however want to know more about the logistics of the shooting. I guess they didn't want to give us details about who brought the gun and which side they were on (or if they were on any side at all) because it could make one side the "bad guy" but how did these kids get shot exactly? In a huge group of people, two kids in presumably different literal sides of the protest are the only victims of this shooting? Did some psycho seriously go to this protest for the purpose of murdering kids? If they were just a mass shooter you would think they would just shoot at the crowd, so its a pretty big coincidence that they happened to hit two kids around the same age who presumably weren't anywhere near each other. 

So after several episodes dealing with social justice and politics in subplots, they decided to just make it the whole main plot, and while the story pretty much went the way I expected it to go, although I admit I was worried about losing one of the kids a few times, I think they did pretty well with the theme of people coming together despite their differences in politics. Italia Ricci and Elizabeth Rodriquez were both really good and they really carried the often difficult beats of the story. I was worried that there would be a twist where the kid who seemed like he was alright would take a bad turn and die and the kid who was seemingly dying would get better, but I am glad that both kids survived. Yeah we all knew that the moms would come together and hug at the end, but it was still a nice ending. The moms might have very different views (whatever those views are) but they are both moms and they found common ground there. Lea was really good with the moms, even when Taryn was lashing out at her. Although I cant really blame her for being upset that Lea might have given her bad advice on her sons treatment because Shaun is her boyfriend. I am really glad that Park figured it out though, and Taryn donating blood for the other kid was a nice touch. I actually thought that there would be a bit where the other mom somehow helped the other kid and it would all be a metaphor for the political divide needing each other to be whole but that might have been just a bit much. 

Clare: "People on the right are so intolerant and refuse to accept peoples different opinions! Also, shut up with your wrong opinions, we must no longer be friends!" 

Yeah that's a simplification of the situation, but the Claire and Asher debate was pretty interesting, and a lot more nuanced than most tv politicking. Of which there is so so so so SO much of on TV. I can get why Claire is upset that Asher would support someone who stands for so many things that Claire hates because they happen to support one cause that he agrees with at the cost of so many others being hurt, and I agree that the "blame on both sides" can create a false equivalency between sides and can too often shut down real debate on moral issues and on calling out truly terrible things or dealing with them, I am in general pretty much on Claire side in principle and politics. It sucks that some people will support someone who hurts one group of people because they benefit their own group or because they like one aspect of their ideas, even if they are also doing a lot of damage. Not even getting into people who really do just believe in really crappy terrible things and truly hate people who are different from them in any way and you cant really reason with them, but that's really not what this episode was about. It can sometimes be hard not to judge people by their politics. However, I also agree with Asher that people are certainly allowed to have their own opinions and vote the way they see fit, even if I don't approve. If certain people cant vote because I think they're opinions are stupid or hateful, I can try to change their minds, I can exercise my right to express my views with my vote, I can look to find other people who share my views and spread what we believe in, but I cant and shouldn't stop those people I disagree with from voting and expressing their views. I'll argue and fight against it, but they have a right to their opinion as much as I do mine. I also think Asher made a good point about how it sucks that you pretty much have to pick one of the two "teams" to be on and because the two teams are so separate so often, you end up having to stick with your team for everything they stand for, even things you don't really like or risk being labeled a traitor to the team. You basically have to decide which one lines up best with your morals and issues your most passionate about, then figure out if the other things are things you can live with. He also isn't wrong that compromise is a good thing, and that if someone disagrees with you its better to try to have a conversation with them, see things from their perspective and they can see yours, and have a debate without things getting heated and personal. Your certainly going to change more opinions with a polite if lively discussion instead of just telling someone who disagrees with you that they suck and are a shitty person and you never want to see them again. I would prefer to at least try to engage, express my views and listen to theirs to try to change minds or each an understanding at least, if that's possible. Also, while I agree with a lot of Claire's issues, that was really not the time or place to have a discussion like that, especially as she is still Asher's supervisor. This is a conversation for lunch break or for after work drinks not while your trying to save a dying child!

I am glad that Park figured things out and that he and Morgan had a nice moment, Morgan can always be counted on for tough love. I think Morgan is already regretting letting Park go off to date another women, she looked a bit wistful when he said he wanted to stop seeing her to commit to the women he is interested in now. Well, as wistful as Morgan is capable of looking. 

So we get the happy ending...only for Lea to collapse, of course. No way could this pregnancy continue with so little drama. 

[rmontro]

Pretty good episode over all, it would be hard not to get involved with the story of the children and the mothers.  I liked that Park came up with the solution, and not Shawn.  Also liked Shawn's "thanks to Park" line.  And that Lea didn't have the immediate perfect comforting words when the bloody mothers came into the waiting room.

Really like the message about the hatred going on in our country right now about political divisions.  Those divisions are real, but we are also being set against each other by the media and politicians, which only serves to further divide us and push us to extremes.  It's a disgusting situation.  Interesting how they copped out with the "Proposition 226" or whatever it was, but went real life with the presidential discussion.

[Fable]

Well, that was a lot!  I think many people are tired of the political unrest and divide (I know I sure am), so this episode grated on my nerves, and of course the gunshot victims were two young boys.   Thankfully both survived or I would have lost my shit!  I’m glad Anderson finally shut down that awkward political conversation in the OR.  That was no place for it.  I don't think Lea should have pointed out the one boy's mother to the other because that seems in violation of HIPAA, but otherwise I really liked her here.  

I don’t know what to think about Lea’s pregnancy.  I had a feeling of foreboding throughout this episode.  I’ve actually wondered if she would go to term since it was announced she was pregnant, and now even more so.  

[Diana Berry]

3 hours ago, statsgirl said:

Yes. Claire reacted since the show gave the impression that other of those policies adversely affected her.

Claire was wrong to get upset with him in the surgery. Andrews, their boss, was even more wrong to coolly challenge Claire with his NRA card. Wrong because they were in surgery, wrong because the power was all his.

I was willing to give Asher time to grow on me.  But he doesn't have cognitive complexity, which I already knew, and he doesn't have abstract empathy (i.e he has empathy for the patient in front of him but doesn't use his imagination to extend it to others).  As a character, he's a repeat of Glasses who has been on Grey's Anatomy for three seasons, a slight, young Jewish man just discovering his sexuality, but with a quarter of Eli's charm. I wish Claire didn't have always to take care of him.

I think Asher is 100 times more interesting than glasses. At least, I know his name.

hoping Park and Morgan are end game for the spring finale.

[windsprints]

Quote

 

I cant really blame her for being upset that Lea might have given her bad advice on her sons treatment because Shaun is her boyfriend

 

I can't fault her either. Someone going through that with their child would be upset and that would boil over into everything going on during that time. However, it was odd how she was fine with a random woman who is an IT Director's medical advice/opinion before she knew she was Shaun's girlfriend. 

Quote

Claire was wrong to get upset with him in the surgery. Andrews, their boss, was even more wrong to coolly challenge Claire with his NRA card.

All of them were wrong for having the discussion then and not focusing on the child who was about to die. I find Andrews most at fault. He is the high ranking, seasoned professional. He should have immediately put a stop to the chatter but instead fed into it with his NRA comments.

[rmontro]

29 minutes ago, windsprints said:

All of them were wrong for having the discussion then and not focusing on the child who was about to die. I find Andrews most at fault. He is the high ranking, seasoned professional. He should have immediately put a stop to the chatter but instead fed into it with his NRA comments.

I have mixed feelings about it.  They have always had unrelated conversations going on even during their most complicated surgeries, so why should politics be any different?  But on the other hand, I am offended that we were subjected to it.  I'm not one who likes politics injected into my entertainment, but that seems to be the case almost everywhere these days.  Which is unfortunate.

 

1 hour ago, Diana Berry said:

hoping Park and Morgan are end game for the spring finale.

They have good chemistry.  But Morgan has one of the biggest cases of commitment phobia I have ever seen.  Worse than that, her mating instincts appear to be that of a black widow spider.  Her idea of romance is tormenting her partner.

[MaryHedwig]

4 hours ago, Avabelle said:

On a superficial note Lea is beautiful but I feel they’ve really fuglied up her wardrobe this season.

Her makeup has also been really low-key this season. Don't know the rationale but I bet these are artistic choices.

[jabRI]

Sorry, but I found this too cliched to get invested. Of course it was two kids from opposite sides shot, of course the mothers had no support system except random Lea, of course one mother donated blood to save the other boy.... it was just way too predictable for me.  They really hit us over the head with a stack of bricks.

[Lukeysboat]

On 4/26/2021 at 11:16 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

I wasn’t impressed.  Maybe, I missed something, but why were there two injured white children?  Maybe, I need to rewatch this episode

I don’t think Mason was white, for whatever that’s worth to you. 
 

Claire’s behavior was completely inappropriate and Andrews should have shut the conversation down. 

[renatae]

On 4/26/2021 at 10:12 PM, Diana Berry said:

A network show actually acknowledging there are two political parties and citizens have the inherent right to vote for who they choose?  It’s a miracle.

Claire's sarcastic, "Oh, yeah, there are good people on both sides?" statement showed she was the intolerant one after she accused the other side of not being able to handle differing opinions. Again, her character is showing how much growth she needs, but I have always liked her.

[bros402]

DVR didn't record it on Monday, so I had to watch it on Hulu today.

Thoughts:
1. Why didn't that mom have her insurance card on her?
2. I expected that one resident (Asher?) to say he voted for Trump, given his background.

Also, wait how much blood did they use on that kid if this seemingly large hospital is running out of blood? Another hospital has no blood because of a pileup? It's a large city, I imagine they would have more than two hospitals...

Also, you think Lea would've gotten security when the two moms yelled at each other, just to be safe. Or a nurse/social worker would've checked in on them every once in a while, so they weren't dependent on the head of IT for emotional support.

It took until? 25 minutes into the episode is when they finally talk to the expert neurosurgeon? You think that would've been when the kid was brought in.

I was also thinking that the episode wouldn't end all happy, especially after Lea got her normal test results.
 

On 4/26/2021 at 11:16 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

I wasn’t impressed.  Maybe, I missed something, but why were there two injured white children?  Maybe, I need to rewatch this episode.  

I believe the other child was Hispanic, at least his mother appeared to be.

Edited April 28, 2021 by bros402

[cinsays]

On 4/27/2021 at 8:07 AM, greekmom said:

But wasn't that how alot of people voted back in 2016? I mean they disliked the opposing candidate and the one they voted for had 1 or 2 points they agreed with?  While I understand what Claire was getting at, I still think that a) this was not the time or place to have that discussion and b) you cannot shame someone for how they voted.  To me Claire was shaming Asher for voting the way he did instead of having a constructive discussion on the voting system in the States and the two candidates.

I honestly thought that 1 of the two kids were going to die.  Lea keeping the peace between the moms was the only good thing about Lea. 

End game is Morgan and Park. Park wants more but Morgan isn't ready. It will happen.

 

Well, I took it that she was just astonished that he voted that way, not that she was shaming him. And he did say, he voted for him ONCE, so that meant he felt that had been a big mistake, so I'll give him that.  

I thought Lea was the most likeable she's been in this whole series, acting like an actual sane adult for a change.  I think we've all felt that this baby would not be a successful delivery, so was not surprised by the ending at all, but was not expecting problems this soon.

I sure hope it is the end for Morgan and Park. I like him and he deserves more that she can give him.

[BookThief]

I agree the time and place was wrong, but I don't blame Claire for feeling how she does, and the paradox of tolerance is in play here. Being tolerant of intolerance is not good for society. Some things you just can't reach across the aisle on. The NRA thing was weird too. You can be a gun owner/supporter and not support the NRA. They do not go hand in hand. That felt a little odd and preachy just to make a point, though I guess a lot of the episode felt that way for me, and none if it had any real teeth so the whole thing kind of fell flat.

I don't know why there were never any police at the hospital taking statements, or as others have mentioned, no one else in the room besides Lea and the 2 moms. I also thought at least one kid would die--just when things are looking up that would be the kid that died. I was glad both of them lived, as unrealistic as that may have been after what happened.

 

 

 

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, BookThief said:

I agree the time and place was wrong, but I don't blame Claire for feeling how she does, and the paradox of tolerance is in play here. Being tolerant of intolerance is not good for society. Some things you just can't reach across the aisle on. 

This. Compromise is also much easier when everyone's on the same page and acknowledging basic actual facts. But if some people are knowingly supporting or spreading misinformation, saying things they know full well aren't true, then that's going to make it very difficult for people to come together to resolve certain issues. 

[MaryHedwig]

11 hours ago, bros402 said:

Also, wait how much blood did they use on that kid if this seemingly large hospital is running out of blood? Another hospital has no blood because of a pileup? It's a large city, I imagine they would have more than two hospitals...

Yes, this not a MASH unit in Korea! They are in San Jose and have to wait for blood to come from LA (that's at least 300 miles away)? There are plenty of hospitals in between. Hell, why can't they just make an announcement at the local Walmart? 'All people who may think they have O- blood please come to the front to save the life of a child.'

[PinkRibbons]

Blood transfusions have to be screened, otherwise the person getting the blood could get HIV, Hep C, etc. If it was as simple as making an announcement in the area they could have made an announcement in the hospital itself, hospitals are huge and everyone in them has blood. This was pure storytelling exception.

(This does remind me, I still remember some of the most striking images post 9/11 were pictures of the lines of people waiting to donate blood all over the country. There was confusion over the fact was they were donating to replenish local supplies, as all the blood that could be spared had been sent to New York and DC. The misconception was that the blood needed was for Ground Zero. Now I think about it, it's been a long time since I've seen a really serious blood drive, even before COVID.)

19 hours ago, Fable said:

I don't think Lea should have pointed out the one boy's mother to the other because that seems in violation of HIPAA, but otherwise I really liked her here. 

Lea's not a doctor and she had been watching the coverage of the shooting on TV, which mentioned that the boys were brought to their hospital. She didn't read any files or get information on them from the hospital. The most she maybe did was eavesdrop. I think pretty much anyone in that situation would have put two and two together on the mothers, considering they were both covered in blood and clearly in shock.

[kicotan]

I agree with the other posters that the specific protest issue was intentionally vague.  For all we know, the kids were caught in the crossfire of a police shooting.

I think this is possibly the first show I’ve seen in a long time (maybe ever) that addresses the fact that Trump was voted into office in 2016 ( instead of everyone pretending nobody except for extremist cults in the South voted for him) so conversation can’t even be had about the inherent damage that a two-party adversarial system has on a presidential election.  Instead of voting for the person running that is best suited for the job, how many people voted for Elderly Male White Rich Contestant #1 because they hated Elderly Male White Rich Contestant #2 more, or, like Asher, identified with one issue/position to the exclusion of considering any other candidate?

Children, going to a political protest rally, is unfortunately a dangerous place to take them these days.  It ain’t the 60’s with the worst thing you could think of was some hippie passing them a joint.  Nut cases, itchy trigger finger folks with overblown egos and something to prove come from both sides of the aisle-civilian as well as those on the job.

[MaryHedwig]

4 hours ago, PinkRibbons said:

Blood transfusions have to be screened, otherwise the person getting the blood could get HIV, Hep C, etc. If it was as simple as making an announcement in the area they could have made an announcement in the hospital itself, hospitals are huge and everyone in them has blood. This was pure storytelling exception.

Thank you for this information. So you would say that the mother donating her O negative to the other mother's child is just in service of the story and not real life? How long does it take for the blood to be screened before it can go into the body of another?  (I guess I have seen too many Westerns where the donor and receiver's arms were side by side.) Thank you again for this information. Really. I was about to make an announcement for them at Walmart (only half-kidding.)

[Granny58]

8 hours ago, BookThief said:

Being tolerant of intolerance is not good for society.

I agree.  Claire's snarky intolerance needed to be shut down.  People are allowed different political opinions without having to be attacked  for them.  

Nope, rethought that and came back to say....it is a vital part of our society that ALL points of view be allowed whether we agree with them or not, and that we treat each other respectfully.  When I was a teen (1000 years ago) the popular saying was "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."     However, WHERE and WHEN are important and in the OR seemed wrong, too distracting.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by Granny58
further thoughts

[BookThief]

1 hour ago, Granny58 said:

I agree.  Claire's snarky intolerance needed to be shut down.  People are allowed different political opinions without having to be attacked  for them.  

Nope, rethought that and came back to say....it is a vital part of our society that ALL points of view be allowed whether we agree with them or not, and that we treat each other respectfully.  When I was a teen (1000 years ago) the popular saying was "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."     However, WHERE and WHEN are important and in the OR seemed wrong, too distracting.  

No, when white supremacists, in the example Claire used, are the other side of the conversation, no, we do not have to be tolerant of that. There were not fine people on both sides. That's the paradox of tolerance I was mentioning.

[Granny58]

10 minutes ago, BookThief said:

No, when white supremacists, in the example Claire used, are the other side of the conversation, no, we do not have to be tolerant of that. There were not fine people on both sides. That's the paradox of tolerance I was mentioning.

free speech is not for nice speech, 

[BookThief]

5 minutes ago, Granny58 said:

free speech is not for nice speech, 

Sure, I never disagreed. But there are consequences to free speech, and there are actually limits on it, including hate speech. A person who is intolerant to others because they are a bigot is not someone anyone needs to be tolerant of, and it's even worse when it's the president, no?

[A.Ham]

1 hour ago, PinkRibbons said:

(This does remind me, I still remember some of the most striking images post 9/11 were pictures of the lines of people waiting to donate blood all over the country. There was confusion over the fact was they were donating to replenish local supplies, as all the blood that could be spared had been sent to New York and DC. The misconception was that the blood needed was for Ground Zero. Now I think about it, it's been a long time since I've seen a really serious blood drive, even before COVID.)

Completely off-topic: I remember watching the second tower fall in horror from across the river at the medical center I worked at. Everyone felt the need to try and do something immediately--donate blood, offer up critical incident stress debriefing, just anything. While we were able to help in some other ways around trauma work in the aftermath, we were particularly told there was not that much blood needed. There just weren't that many survivors. That stayed with me--watching the worst and best of humanity revealed in such a condensed timeframe. 

Regarding the episode, I thought it was completely inappropriate to have the political discussion happen in the workplace, let alone allowing it to go as far as it did. And that is as much as I will say because this is not a political forum.

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, BookThief said:

No, when white supremacists, in the example Claire used, are the other side of the conversation, no, we do not have to be tolerant of that. There were not fine people on both sides. That's the paradox of tolerance I was mentioning.

That is true, that the one thing we don't need to be tolerant of is complete hate and intolerance, which as you say is a paradox.  Of course, as a doctor, Claire may need to treat a white supremacist someday. Which I'm sure would be tough for her, but Hippocratic oath and all......

However, Asher is not a white supremacist. At least he does not appear to be from what we have seen so far. So Claire should be tolerant of his opinions.

Edited April 29, 2021 by KaveDweller

[Artsda]

All those hours of multiple and evasive surgeries and both boys wake up right after? Seemed fast and both moms had no other family to come be with them?

[Granny58]

11 hours ago, BookThief said:

Sure, I never disagreed. But there are consequences to free speech, and there are actually limits on it, including hate speech. A person who is intolerant to others because they are a bigot is not someone anyone needs to be tolerant of, and it's even worse when it's the president, no?

we're going to get booted off of this forum for straying too far so I hope this posts.   There sure are consequences to free speech but it's gone too far.  I don't want people to lose their jobs over differences of political opinions or social issues...unless they are a DIRECT THREAT to someone.   People don't need to agree and "tolerate" (for lack of a better word coming to mind) hateful speech but also cannot shut it down.   For example, I personally don't need to tolerate something I oppose, but it would be up to me to leave or ignore it or whatever is appropriate in the given situation.   It's a complicated issue and every occurrence needs to be assessed individually.   Everybody thinks of Hitler and should he have been shut down.  Well, yeah...he specifically advocated eliminating a group of people (several groups actually).  But we never hear that George B. Shaw, Sanger or Woodrow Wilson should have been shut down for their eugenicist and racist views.  Also, did you know that when St. Paul was preaching in Asia Minor he was beaten to unconsciousness by people as well as thrown in prison for his speech against the gods of the time and threat to Roman law.  And let's not forget, 1776 when people actively advocated for overthrowing the government.   Threatening speech is one thing, "hate" speech is too nebulous a term.  One person's hate is another person's cause.   It's a better idea to have a strong personal conviction and try to persuade people through reason.   

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, Granny58 said:

we're going to get booted off of this forum for straying too far so I hope this posts

Tread lightly, right?
I think because of this episode’s theme, there might be a little leeway.  One can hope.

A long time ago I spoke with therapists and counselors about my then-husband’s addiction issues and one of them said something that has stuck with me ever since.  The most dangerous place to be is inflexible-the teetotaler is in the same mindset as the full blown alcoholic  that refuses to put it down.

Claire’s inflexibility might bite her in the ass later on...but Asher’s flexibility will serve him well, even if he voted for an unpopular and widely hated candidate in a Presidential election.  Back in 2016 there were at least a handful of feminists that strongly opposed Hillary’s bid~her support of her husband and vilification of the women he abused made her a vile human being, according to them.  Voting for Trump was the lesser of two evils-like Asher, they completely ignored the fact that there were more than two candidates on the ballot.

Edited April 29, 2021 by kicotan
Clarity

[ForReal]

On 4/27/2021 at 4:31 PM, windsprints said:

I can't fault her either. Someone going through that with their child would be upset and that would boil over into everything going on during that time. However, it was odd how she was fine with a random woman who is an IT Director's medical advice/opinion before she knew she was Shaun's girlfriend. 

I guess it makes sense that she was just striking out in fear and anxiety, but I thought it was weird that she was complaining about Lea's being biased because Shaun's her boyfriend. Like what if he was Lea's ex-boyfriend and she told the parent NOT to do whatever he recommended because he's a jerk? The woman needed to make up her own mind.

On 4/27/2021 at 10:48 PM, bros402 said:

DVR didn't record it on Monday, so I had to watch it on Hulu today.

Thoughts:
1. Why didn't that mom have her insurance card on her?

I wondered that too and thought that she rushed into the hospital without her purse. I didn't see purses near either mom that I can recall.

[Diana Berry]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:30 PM, BookThief said:

No, when white supremacists, in the example Claire used, are the other side of the conversation, no, we do not have to be tolerant of that. There were not fine people on both sides. That's the paradox of tolerance I was mentioning.

Not everyone is a supremist.

[bros402]

10 hours ago, ForReal said:

I wondered that too and thought that she rushed into the hospital without her purse. I didn't see purses near either mom that I can recall.

I think she had her purse in the waiting room? I think it was on her lap? Or she put it on the floor

[Starchild]

I liked this episode, it was a strong one, with lots to think about (both in-episode, and meta-wise).

But...

Park wanting to bail on a case because it's a kid? That's BS. I don't buy it. Park loves his son, but he's clear-eyed and pragmatic, not overly sensitive.

A clear example of plot driving character, rather than character driving plot. It was all about setting up the breakup at the end.

Which, as I noted a few episodes ago, was fated to happen, because he and Morgan just don't relationship the same way. If they do come back together, she will need to change how she interacts, at least with him, if not with everyone else.

[possibilities]

On 4/28/2021 at 6:34 PM, kicotan said:

Children, going to a political protest rally, is unfortunately a dangerous place to take them these days

School, the grocery store, the movies, there are shootings everywhere these days.

This show has always had conversations in the OR which I consider to be highly inappropriate for the situation (I'd want my surgeons paying attention to the surgery, not bickering on ANY subject, or talking about their sex lives), but since they do that nearly every episode, I just chalk it up to the TV show's conventions, regardless of the particular topic of the day. 

What I think about the "tolerance" of everyone's opinions is this: if one person has the right to have any opinion, another person has the right to disagree with it or dislike them for having it. You can't just assert a right to free thought and only apply it to yourself. Claire was horrified by Asher's opinion and by his behavior, but she wasn't stopping him from voting or thinking however he wanted to. Disagreement is part of the price of having opinions, and it's unpleasant but it's not the same as restricting thought or behavior. And what we think and do has consequences in the world-- who we vote for, what we advocate for or against, will impact other people's lives and not only our own-- so I think that it's not really grounded in reality to think that whatever a person thinks it's solely their own business and no one can have any reaction to it. If you keep your opinions to yourself, no one will react to them, but if you express them, people will. It's just reality! It's not like a favorite flavor of ice cream where it really doesn't affect other people. Politics is about how people collectively make decisions that affect each other, so of course everyone's opinion has some kind of ripple in the world outside themselves, and thus people will have feelings about it. 

It's hard. I'm not saying it's fun or easy. And I agree they shouldn't be talking about it during surgery. But I can't really fault people for caring what other people think or do about issues that affect the world. It's very consequential. People have the right to vote or think how they want, but once you open up the discussion of it, I think people also have the right to say why they think it's right or wrong, and can't be expected to just act like it's all the same and has no impact.

[jabRI]

On 4/28/2021 at 9:28 PM, A.Ham said:

Completely off-topic: I remember watching the second tower fall in horror from across the river at the medical center I worked at. Everyone felt the need to try and do something immediately--donate blood, offer up critical incident stress debriefing, just anything. While we were able to help in some other ways around trauma work in the aftermath, we were particularly told there was not that much blood needed. There just weren't that many survivors. That stayed with me--watching the worst and best of humanity revealed in such a condensed timeframe. 

I remember this too, it also stayed with me.  My husband was working in NY at the time, and as a frequent blood donor in normal times, I asked him if he was going to do that.  His response was most everyone either survived or died, it wasn't like the hospitals were overflowing. 

I remember NYC responded by going to back to life, out to eat, out to the theater, not to live in fear.

[Driad]

A day or two after the Boston Marathon bombing (April 2013) I donated blood at a Boston hospital.  The phlebotomist said they had been very busy on the day of the bombing.  Many people who had just finished running the marathon ran the extra mile (literally) to donate blood.  The blood was badly needed for the many injured people.

[Whodunnit]

It saddens me that we can't get away from politics while watching a scripted show (which for many of us is a form of escapism). I find that all conversations regarding politics are a minefield these days, and are very stressful to have... Even sometimes with people who share your views.

I liked Lea this episode (shocking, I know).