she may like the bad boys but she is not a fixer of broken men Exactly. That's what she has always refused to be. She'll hold House's hand when he's down, but she's not about mending him. In fact, in 'Help Me' she refuses to be the one to 'save' him - she tells him unmistakably that it's his call, not hers. And at the end of 'Recession Proof' she's worried, IMO because she senses that House is once more trying to turn her into his saviour. (He speaks in 'you'-messages instead of 'I'-messages. The content may be positive, but with it he's delegating responsibility for his actions to Cuddy instead of taking it himself, and that's what spooks her.) In 'Bombshells' she recognises that his basic behavioural patterns have not changed despite his superficial renunciation of his addiction. She can't accept that, quite rightly IMO because accepting it would be enabling his addiction.
What I'm not okay with is her decision to drop him. I think there's a middle way where one sits down, spells out what changes need to be made (and yes, he IS going to have to change, but anyone who says that asking him to change from addictive behaviour to non-addictive behaviour is asking him to change his entire persona is a Wilson-esque enabler), spells out the consequences if those changes aren't made, sets up a control mechanism to check on whether both sides are sticking to their agreement and then starts implementing the agreement. For example: House will go back to therapy. He will continue to do so for the rest of his life. If he has a relapse he will sign up for detox and treatment straightaway. If he panics and feels the need for narcotics he will contact his therapist. As long as he sticks to these points Cuddy will not dump him. That's hard work for Cuddy, because he will relapse sooner or later, and she'll probably have to drag him to therapy every now and then, and when he does relapse it's tough on family life, but if it's clear that there are benefits for both sides, it's workable. It gives the addict the incentive to tackle therapy and detox after a relapse because he has the certainty of not facing negative consequences at random, but only if he violates his side of the deal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-09 10:09 am (UTC)she may like the bad boys but she is not a fixer of broken men
Exactly. That's what she has always refused to be. She'll hold House's hand when he's down, but she's not about mending him. In fact, in 'Help Me' she refuses to be the one to 'save' him - she tells him unmistakably that it's his call, not hers. And at the end of 'Recession Proof' she's worried, IMO because she senses that House is once more trying to turn her into his saviour. (He speaks in 'you'-messages instead of 'I'-messages. The content may be positive, but with it he's delegating responsibility for his actions to Cuddy instead of taking it himself, and that's what spooks her.) In 'Bombshells' she recognises that his basic behavioural patterns have not changed despite his superficial renunciation of his addiction. She can't accept that, quite rightly IMO because accepting it would be enabling his addiction.
What I'm not okay with is her decision to drop him. I think there's a middle way where one sits down, spells out what changes need to be made (and yes, he IS going to have to change, but anyone who says that asking him to change from addictive behaviour to non-addictive behaviour is asking him to change his entire persona is a Wilson-esque enabler), spells out the consequences if those changes aren't made, sets up a control mechanism to check on whether both sides are sticking to their agreement and then starts implementing the agreement.
For example: House will go back to therapy. He will continue to do so for the rest of his life. If he has a relapse he will sign up for detox and treatment straightaway. If he panics and feels the need for narcotics he will contact his therapist. As long as he sticks to these points Cuddy will not dump him.
That's hard work for Cuddy, because he will relapse sooner or later, and she'll probably have to drag him to therapy every now and then, and when he does relapse it's tough on family life, but if it's clear that there are benefits for both sides, it's workable. It gives the addict the incentive to tackle therapy and detox after a relapse because he has the certainty of not facing negative consequences at random, but only if he violates his side of the deal.