The PPTH Farm fallacy

[readingrat]

… or How is it that all doctors are morons, but some are bigger morons than others?

(Note: This is basically a continuation of my Tripwires and Thanksgiving rant, so if you haven't read it yet, you might want to do that first before reading this one. If you hated that one, then you're better off skipping this one altogether.)

In my last rant I talked about the Midsomer Murder Fallacy, i.e. making assumptions about characters based on RL knowledge that doesn't apply to the series in question. This one is about letting some characters be more equal than others; in other words, judging characters according to a moral code, but applying this code selectively. It's a fallacy that's a lot more difficult to detect than the Midsomer Murder one, because we're at the crossing point between fact and opinion. What we see on screen is fact, what we make of it is our opinion. Nonetheless, while I grant everyone the right to cherish and nurture prejudices and preferences in their private chambers, it's helpful if, during discussions on public forums, they are aware that some of their judgments are coloured by their preferences/prejudices and could go the other way if some other character were involved.

My example in this case is the Season 1 episode Detox. In it Cuddy, instigated by Wilson, makes a bet with House that he can't stay off vicodin for a week. The idea is to show House that he's an addict who can't do without his opiates for a longer period of time. House takes on the bet and wins, but admits in the end that he is an addict.

This episode is as ridiculous from a RL point of view as the Midsomer Murder episode that I cited in my last post. I admit that as a lay person I had no clue about the difference between dependence and addiction until I started writing fan fiction. But superficial research into the long-term effects of opiate use brought the difference to my notice, and the long and short of it is that anyone who uses opiates for a longer period of time will experience bodily withdrawal symptoms regardless of whether they are addicted or not. Hence withdrawal symptoms are not a valid test for addiction, and the fact that House has them is no proof whatsoever that he is addicted to vicodin. Putting him through the bet proves nothing except that withdrawal is painful. Now if I know that after merely skimming a few internet sites, shouldn't physicians know as much too? If my GP didn't know the difference between dependence and addiction, I'd consider him a moron for sure.

Viewers under the influence of the Midsomer Murder fallacy would at this point assume that the writers intend us to know that doctors should know the difference between dependency and addiction, and that therefore we are to consider all the doctors involved - Wilson, Cuddy, the team, and House - to be morons. That, in turn, would mean that House MD is a parody of medical shows, the same way Police Academy is a parody of police procedurals. I don't think I have ever heard anyone express this view; I guess anyone who made that assumption stopped watching the show and never made it to the forums, because as a parody House MD doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment value.

An opinion that I have heard a lot, however, is that some of the doctors involved should have known better. Mostly, the ones who should have known better are Wilson and Cuddy, while House can be excused for not knowing about the different effects of the medication he is taking. His team can swing either way in this scenario. This is what I'll call the PPTH Farm fallacy (in analogy to George Orwell's Animal Farm), because it exempts one party from rules and regulations that it subjects the other party to, despite the fact that both parties have the same starting point. I'm not really sure why it's usually House who is not expected to know about the basics of opiate use and abuse; one can make a argument for Wilson, as an oncologist who regularly has to prescribe opiates as a palliative, being obliged to know more than the others, but there's certainly no argument for Cuddy or House's team needing to know more than he does, and there's absolutely no argument for anyone knowing less than I do unless we're prepared to suspend disbelief and let go of all we know from RL. I've heard it argued that House is honour-bound to accept a bet (seriously, are they the Three Musketeers?), but I suspect that the long and short of it is that tall guys with searing blue eyes are allowed to have a bit more yardage between the goal posts than normal mortals.

This fallacy is probably the commonest fallacy around, and depending on which character or 'ship' a viewer favours, it is applied to pretty much everyone on the show, and not just to House. The fallacy justifies tripwires while condemning opossums in bathtubs and loosened grab rails, finds nothing noteworthy about House yelling at his employees but objects when Cuddy yells at hers, expects House to stay alive and out of trouble for Wilson, but not the other way round … (All the examples I've named, and many more, are used both ways around.) Spotting the fallacy is difficult enough, because there's usually some pretty solid argumentation around it. There is nothing wrong with objecting to opossums in bathtubs; I remember someone making a strong case against Lucas because it was, after all, very cruel towards the poor opossum, an aspect I hadn't considered until then. The question is whether the person in question would have developed such protective feelings for the wee beastie if House or Wilson had planted it in Lucas's bathtub.

And that's basically the test for the PPTH Farm Fallacy: if the respective positions of the protagonists are reversed, or if you replace your most loved/most hated figure with another, does this still bother you? (This requires some mental discipline and basic honesty with oneself.)

Does the fallacy matter? Aren't we allowed to have our own views and opinions, or view the show through our own experiences so that it relates to our lives?

I wouldn't mind if the PPTH Farm fallacy didn't lead to some very strange and scary theories. Let me give you an example. I read the beginning of a fanfic some time ago, a House/Cuddy established relationship one. In it Cuddy asks House what the difference is between sex with her and the sex he used to have with hookers. House, after putting up a valiant fight, finally agrees to show her by treating her the way he treated his hookers. What follows is basically the description of sex that is somewhere between non-con and rape. The fic ends - if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong because, frankly, I was somewhat distracted by physical feelings of nausea - with Cuddy being glad that her relationship with House is different, secure in the knowledge that House respects her more than he did his hookers.

This fic has a problem that has nothing to do with the fallacy as such: it turns House into a rapist, and the author doesn't even realise she is doing so. (No, it was not a dark!House fic.) But the actual fallacy lies in the assumption that hookers don't have the same right to physical safety and respect for their personal space that Cuddy is entitled to. Because they are 'only' hookers, their customers have the right to get physically rough and don't have to ask their consent for whatever they want to do to them. Cuddy, on the other hand, being a respectable woman (and probably a favourite of the author's) can expect to be treated with respect and consideration. That's the fallacy in full bloom: Cuddy is more equal than the hookers, for no other reason than that she's Cuddy.

This fic highlights another weakness that the fallacy leads to: it distorts the character that it is trying to protect, sometimes to such an extent that the original character can't be recognised any more. Let's look at Cuddy in the example above. Should she have been relieved at finding out that House used to rape hookers? I don't think so. If she had the slightest smidgen of sense, she'd run for the hills. The fallacy ends up turning her into a suicidal moron, too blinded by the approval she craves from her boyfriend to recognise that he's an utter bastard and a disaster waiting to happen. (The real Cuddy would have kneed House in the groin at the first signs of roughness and told him to get out of her life until he's got his sexual issues treated.)

This was an extreme example, but it basically applies to any example of the fallacy in action. Let's look at Detox again. If House, as a physician, is not expected to know the difference between addiction and dependence, or about the dangers of an uncontrolled detox, while Wilson and Cuddy are, then the fallacy makes Wilson and Cuddy out to be cruel and uncaring, but it also turns House into a blithering idiot for not knowing what two otherwise inferior doctors know or for not acting on his knowledge even though it's his health that's at stake. And that's going to happen every time we exempt characters from rules that we otherwise declare to be universally valid, because in our society we only exempt people from rules for a handful of reasons, and those mostly boil down to saying that they cannot be held fully responsible because they are not on the same mental level as an average person (children, people who are mentally incapacitated, people who are under the influence of intoxicating substances). Sure, if you want your favourite character to be considered incapacitated or permanently too high to be held accountable, then go ahead and create special rules for him or her. Otherwise, suck it up and make sure everyone is equal - always!

Comments

[barefootpuddles.livejournal.com]

Yay! It is so nice to see someone acknowledge what is out there. It is okay to have preference for your character of choice, and to forgive or understand them for bad behavior, what irks me is when people won't admit it. The biggest offenses are always in favor of House. And the ones that get no quarter are usually Wilson and Cuddy - Cuddy in the H/W fandom especially gets a raw deal, and outside of the H/W community Wilson gets it big time. I always find it interesting that the man who refuses to accept pity and glorifies facing the truth (even if he doesn't always live by that) is the one that the most excuses are made for. House in most parts of the fandom is excused because of the following various reasons: bad childhood, infarction, hard on himself, lost loves, has an addiction, is lonely, is a genius, is a tortured soul, and is in pain. I think people refer to this as the 'woobie!House' paradigm. It always seems really odd to me considering the character, but I do understand writing for it. It helps move hurt/comfort fics along well. What I don't understand is not admitting to doing it. So...thank you for putting it out there so thoughtfully and clearly.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

I do understand writing for it. It helps move hurt/comfort fics along well. What I don't understand is not admitting to doing it.
I also understand writing for it, and I have read (and written) fics based on much more ridiculous premises, but - if the fic is any good the author is aware of the premises he/she is making. There's a difference, after all, between author and narrator, and it's usually pretty easy to figure out whether the narrative is based on a premise or whether the author bases his/her entire world view on that premise. It's perfectly okay to say it's fairy tale time and to spin a tale with goblins, fairies and princesses. It's an entirely different matter when you try to convince everyone around you that every time someone sneezes a fairy dies.

[cuddyclothes.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand is not admitting to doing it. So...thank you for putting it out there so thoughtfully and clearly.

Because it seems to that person that their position is absolutely the RIGHT one and anyone who disagrees is crazy or wrong.

[barefootpuddles.livejournal.com]

Because it seems to that person that their position is absolutely the RIGHT one and anyone who disagrees is crazy or wrong.

It's odd that people won't admit their biases for a fictional situation, isn't it?

I mean I KNOW I write Wilson more caring about House than he is in canon, and House kinder on the inside than I think he is on the show (though I try to keep him gruff on the outside). I like Cuddy so she always does the right thing. But I like Wilson as the object of House's true affection so no women feature in my story as anything sexual. But these are all manipulations of the show and I know it.

A really good writer (not me, but there are plenty in our fandom)can make anything seem believable during their story, but even they must know it is written to gratify their own biases!

[menolly-au.livejournal.com]

You set out the argument very well. I just think this type of fic is ID fic, it appeals to the people who share that need, everyone else is going to think it's ridiculous (and should probably stop reading). I guess what you're saying is that the writers and readers/commentators should be aware that it's ID fic and not a deep reading of canon that reveals otherwise undiscovered truths about the characters?

I think maybe *some* of the commentators on these type of stories are aware of this, but when you write a comment to a fic you tend to phrase it in the 'universe' of that fic. So if say, Wilson is an evil slave owner you say 'boo hiss Wilson, he should be flogged - see how he likes it', and if it's a woobie!House fic your comment will tend to reflect that sentiment ('it's good to see Wilson finally having to face all the bad things he's done to House'). Doesn't mean that you hate Wilson (or agree 100% with the story) - but it's an appropriate response to the events and worldview as portrayed in that story. (and obviously some commentators/writers totally believe that this worldview is correct and no amount of arguing is ever going to change their mind).

But I must admit this type of fic does make me want to bring out my inner nitpicker and write thousands of words in rebuttal :) And yeah, House would hate hearing people make excuses for him.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

The problem isn't limited to fics; it's rampant in the comms in episode discussions, where it drives me bananas. You can't have a decent discussion when people around you are Midsomer Murdering with what would happen in RL, if ..., but it's just as bad when there's an elaborate set of morals being applied selectively and creatively, and no one has any idea what the rules behind it are. Then it's, 'Oh, but he did,' and, 'Yes, but she did,' and the discussion is about everything but the moral standard that's being applied.

As for woobie!House fics (I'd never heard the term before), Barefootpuddles mentioned them too. I'll copy and paste my reply: "There's a difference, after all, between author and narrator, and it's usually pretty easy to figure out whether the narrative is based on a premise or whether the author bases his/her entire world view on that premise. It's perfectly okay to say it's fairy tale time and to spin a tale with goblins, fairies and princesses. It's an entirely different matter when you try to convince everyone around you that every time someone sneezes a fairy dies."

But you know all about that. You've written in the Collarverse, where Cuddy and Wilson are anything but nice, but those fics don't fall under the PPTH Farm fallacy for the following reasons:
1. It's clear to everyone concerned that there's a basic premise, namely that House is a slave.
2. Given what we know about Wilson and Cuddy in our world, it is not far-fetched to assume that in a totalitarian system their more unpleasant character traits would be magnified and that they'd get away with the kind of behaviour that would ensue.
3. If House put up with their behaviour in our universe, he'd be the kind of blithering idiot I described in the PPTH Farm fallacy. In the Collarverse there's a good reason for him to put up with constant exploitation of the worst kind: he has no choice.

One of the main problems with arguments and fics based on the PPTH Farm fallacy is that there's simply no logical explanation anymore for the behaviour, not of those characters who are described as unpleasant, but of the ones who are subjected to that unpleasantness and don't do anything to defend themselves.

[menolly-au.livejournal.com]

So are you saying that in episode discussions one shouldn't bring up the point that for example, the entire premise of the last episode is invalid because House wouldn't have in the real world had his parole revoked under those circumstances?

Or are you saying that it would be wrong to then draw the conclusion from that that Foreman doesn't care about House because he didn't immediately summon a lawyer who would point out to the New Jersey Parole board that what they're doing is in fact illegal (ignoring the fact that House could engage his own lawyer if he so desired)?

I can agree that the second point is ridiculous, but I think pointing out real world inconsistencies (nit picking if you like) is part of the fun of episode discussions. In the Midsommer example it would be quite valid to raise that point in an episode discussion I think, but not to then draw the conclusion that the police must have super powers.

[barefootpuddles.livejournal.com]

I think maybe *some* of the commentators on these type of stories are aware of this, but when you write a comment to a fic you tend to phrase it in the 'universe' of that fic.

I agree with you completely that it is a different story when someone comments on a story clearly written from a different angle. The Collarverse stories are an extreme example but make the point well - arguing angrily that Wilson would never be like that negates the entire story, so that is clearly a 'Don't like? Don't read!' case. Same thing with dark!Wilson or extreme hurt/comfort fics. Even House/Cuddy or H/W slash falls within that parameter - why read it is you can't see them together that way? And don't rant about it in the comment section of someone's story.

But twisting canon in fics to fit a premise that bashes one character and excuses another for the same actions, and refusing to acknowledge that you did that when someone mentions it, goes beyond artistic license I think. And worse in my opinion is distorting a character completely in public comm discussions. Usually by defending one favorite character's failings but accusing another character of stuff just because it isn't your ship or preference. That makes makes no sense to me.

I guess I am still just a little tired of the Cuddy wars thing. I have also seen it happen to Wilson in various fics or discussions, but at least those tend to be on people's own journals so I tend to leave those alone and just go on my merry Wilson loving way. :)

[yarroway.livejournal.com]

But twisting canon in fics to fit a premise that bashes one character and excuses another for the same actions...

You hit on a tactic that has always bugged me. It's unnecessary to bash someone just to stick up for someone else. It's gratuitous, and for me it detracts from the point the person is trying to make.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

And worse in my opinion is distorting a character completely in public comm discussions.
I agree here. Fics are one-way commincations from authors to readers. If an author chooses to write things that annoy readers, well, then the readers can simply boycott the fic and read other stuff. Comm discussions, however, are an exchange based on a common code of conduct and a common topic. If the common topic is an episode or a character, you're free to state any opinion that you can defend within the common code of conduct - and the common code of conduct within a comm discussion is that only information that is accepted as canon is the basis for character discussions. I'd love to retcon canon and turn House's S7 finale binge into a suicide attempt gone wrong, but there's no canon evidence whatsoever for that theory, and stating it vociferously in the comms doesn't make it any truer.

Usually by defending one favorite character's failings but accusing another character of stuff just because it isn't your ship or preference.
That's kindergarten style logic ('Your bike is a stupid colour!' - 'Your bike is an even stupider colour!') - people believe that if they make other characters look bad, their character looks better. It works on a relative level, but not on an absolute one. For me, it doesn't work at all, because I only enjoy shows when I can think well of practically everyone.

[yarroway.livejournal.com]

I agree with much of what you say here. Standards have to be the same for each character, otherwise what you get isn't judgement but agenda.

One of the issues that trips people up, I think, is that of motive. If a viewer doesn't like a particular character already, they will ascribe less than stellar motivations to the things they do. Whereas the character they like is assumed to be acting from a pure heart.

However I do differ with you when you call Wilson and Cuddy inferior doctors. There's plenty of canon showing that Wilson can more than hold his own with House, professionally and personally. I can't recall enough of what we've seen of Cuddy practicing medicine to have an opinion about her either way.

I have a lot of thoughts about the examples you used and I could go on and on about them all...but I'd bore you to tears.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

Where'd my reply just go? Anyway, agree to what you wrote about motive. I tend to do it too, but I hate it when others do it ;-) No, seriously, all the more reason to keep a close eye on what one reacts to and how one does it.

I do differ with you when you call Wilson and Cuddy inferior doctors.
I'd argue this with you, stating that it's a given of the series that House is stellarly superior to everyone else (I meant 'inferior to House', not 'inferior to the average doctor'), but it was a mere rhetorical device with no substance and no bearing on my main line of argumentation: either all of them are clueless or none of them are.

Feel free to bore me to tears; after all, I show no compunction towards you either.

[cuddyclothes.livejournal.com]

I agree with much of what you say here. Standards have to be the same for each character, otherwise what you get isn't judgement but agenda.

Heh.

[visitkarte.livejournal.com]

What you forget it the official FDA drug policy. Look at some reports about the official view on addiction, dependency and laws. They are all part of the system, and the whole USA tends to easily forget the difference. House, Cuddy and Wilson are part of the system. House is also a "living on the edge" person, ready to do crazy things; detox is only one of them. Beside, you have no idea how he understands his severe craving fro Vicodin: In the trows of his withdrawal he probably saw dancing Vicodin bottles in front of his inner eye. THAT would make him an addict in his own mind.

More about the USA drug policy? Read @radleybalko @kevinmd on Twitter, they have some nice examples from time to time. Or talk with USA doctors.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

House is also a "living on the edge" person, ready to do crazy things;
That explains why he'd agree to the bet, but it doesn't excuse him. The difference? A 'living on the edge' sort of person may well feel inclined to speed far beyond what traffic regulations allow. His temperament explains how it is that he speeds where a more sedate person will obey traffic regulations; it's no excuse, however, for any damage he causes to himself or to others. The law doesn't care how reckless a person is by nature.

I don't condemn House for accepting the bet, but I don't condemn Wilson and Cuddy for proposing it and I don't condemn the team for not stopping any of this. If you decide to condemn Cuddy and Wilson, but to exempt House because he's a 'living on the edge' sort of person, then you're doing exactly what I described in my article - making special rules for some people that exempts them from using their brains.

Whether House was really an addict at that point or not makes no difference to my argument. I only mentioned that he said he was so that people would recognise which episode I was talking about; the withdrawal was dangerous regardless of whether he was an addict or not.

[cuddyclothes.livejournal.com]

Extrapolating from my own RL experience, my psychiatrist prescribed amphetimines; I was never told why, but then, I had been through SO many meds it became sort of a "well, if it doesn't give me a seizure or turn my legs into jelly, I'll take it." Besides, with a cup of coffee in the morning, damn, you were AWAKE!

Then during a week in Fire Island (no pharmacies) I didn't have enough and had to cut the dose in half. I was sick as a dog. Being an alcoholic, I'm wary of anything being addictive. When I was back with my doctor, I said I was afraid of being addicted to amphetimines. "Your body is accustomed to it," he replied.

The next psychiatrist I went to saw no need for the drug (as well as four others I was on), thought I was addicted, so I detoxed...very, very slowly. It was horrible.

So was I addicted? I don't know. I went off them when it was clear there was no real need for them. I miss that WOO-HOO in the morning, but not anything else. However, I am an alcoholic, and I was aware of that for a long time before I was forced to quit drinking. (It wasn't my choice and there was no intervention. But I'm glad I stopped.)

However, I personally view House as a very well-informed drug addict. There are hundreds of high-functioning alcoholics and cocaine-users. House stands apart from himself in much the way he observes others (IMO)so I think he would know what he was in for with detox. But again, IMO, it was his pride at stake. In the episode where he caths himself, he's aware that it's his Vicodin addiction that's causing his problem. (In RL it's constipation, but that would be a little more...um...hard to show.) I'm IMO every other sentence because I'm not pretending to be unbiased.

I also think Wilson is a highly competent doctor, or he wouldn't be the head of oncology. My best guess is that Cuddy is a good doctor, but she almost never has to do any doctoring anymore. Mostly maintain enough medical knowledge to understand procedures and keep up with the latest techniques, etc.

[yarroway.livejournal.com]

Like you, I consider House an addict. House himself says so more than once. The diagnosis may not always make sense for the same reasons that most of them don't make sense. IMO the overall portrait of House is as an addict.

We can certainly argue the addiction angle--the show leaves room for that--but it's clear to me that House abuses Vicodin even if he isn't addicted to it.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the right response to this is, but I think I'll go with writing my first thought: Thank goodness my life is so uneventful and I've had it so easy. But you're a god-sent for me: you're the living proof that the people who refuse to give House an extra-special deal because of his various health issues aren't just a callous bunch who don't understand pain and addiction. If you, with your past, can be fair towards Wilson and Cuddy (and I don't think I know any non-Huddy who is as open towards Cuddy as you are), then so can others. Thanks for sharing.

I think it isn't quite clear in the show what House is at what point of time. One thing's for sure: if one needs specialist knowledge in addiction issues to get the writers' meaning, then they are doing something wrong, just as the Midsomer Murder writers would be doing something wrong if everyone needed a degree in engineering to recognise Barnaby's super powers. So, I think it's safe to assume that we're supposed to take Detox at surface value.

I also think Wilson is a highly competent doctor, or he wouldn't be the head of oncology. My best guess is that Cuddy is a good doctor
My denigrating their medical qualities was a mere rhetorical device, which I freely admit to at this stage. It makes no difference as far as my argument goes: either all of them know, or none of them do, but House certainly should know if the others do.

[visitkarte.livejournal.com]

In this matter, I don't blame them for being biazed American doctors. I blame them for playing "doctor" of a close friend. Cuddy is even worse, because she is his employer. Two reasons not to get involved in his medical treatment. I can't blame them for being worried. Vicodin can trash his liver. But the right way is to insist he goes to a pain specialist of his own choice and refuse playing "doctor" for him. Wilson should have written a proper consult letter to whatever specialist House chose and THAT would have worked much better than this stupid bet. But this is neither here nor there... It's TV, not a medical joirnal. What works in RL often doesn't work on screen.

[yarroway.livejournal.com]

I'd just like to point out that if playing doctor to friends and employees (and, presumably, girlfriends and romantic rivals) is wrong for Wilson and Cuddy, it's also wrong for House. House treated Mark in S1 and Foreman in S2. He involved himself in Thirteen's diagnosis in S4 or 5, and Wilson's treatment in S6 and S8.

I'm not condemning House here. I have no issue with him doing these things, but I also don't condemn Cuddy and Wilson for involving themselves in House's treatment.

[violettblack.livejournal.com]

It is a little frustrating that there are so many viewers of House who will never know the full story on addiction on people who take prescription medications and get addicted, but without being addicts. Just to get withdrawal from stopping a prescription drug does not make you an addict!

I don’t think that House was a real addict because if he was one, he would have taken the Vicodin during the pain free time after the ketamine coma, too. But he hasn’t done that. He only started to organize himself Vicodin again after his thigh started hurting again.

If everything, House is a so called Pseudo-addict. Pseudo addiction is a drug-seeking behaviour that simulates true addiction, which occurs in patients with pain who are receiving inadequate pain medication.

But I prefer to describe House as a pain patient who is dependent on pain medication because of severe pain.

And Cuddy and Wilson are bad doctors because they wanted to put their own sight of things, world view, wishes, treatment methods and narrow views of House’s pain problem over House.
They didn’t care what House, the patient, really needed and wanted.

[yarroway.livejournal.com]

And Cuddy and Wilson are bad doctors because they wanted to put their own sight of things, world view, wishes, treatment methods and narrow views of House’s pain problem over House. They didn’t care what House, the patient, really needed and wanted.

That Wilson and Cuddy are uncaring of what House really needs and wants (medically speaking) is your interpretation of canon, but it in many cases it isn't what canon shows us.

To me the more interesting question is, what does that say about House, who often ignores his patients' wishes, and who at least once decided what a patient's needs were? Are you applying your standards to everyone equally? I know that, for myself, I tend to make excuses for the characters I like and not for those I don't. If I want to judge any of the characters, though, I have to force myself to apply my standards equally.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me at the beginning of your post. So just to clarify: I didn't mean to say that House was an addict; in fact, IMO the episode was crap from a RL medical pov and House's detox is no proof that he is an addict. My point is that no matter whether House is an addict or not, whether the detox is dangerous or not, and whether or not the whole idea of detoxing is good or absolute crap, if Wilson and Cuddy are bad doctors not to see House's wants and needs, then so is House himself. Yes, I actually expect an adult of normal intelligence to ponder his own situation and make responsible choices for himself.

As for your line of argumentation, it falls under what I call the Midsomer Murder fallacy. I've explained in detail what that is in my last post, 'Tripwires and Thanksgiving', to which there is a link at the top of this page. The Spark Notes version of that post is as follows: the writers frequently ignore the facts of life when writing episodes. If one views these episodes based on one's knowledge of RL, then the episodes don't make sense.

The question is whether Detox falls into that category. Now, as Visitkarte aptly pointed out, most people in America, including doctors, don't know the difference between dependency and addiction. It is therefore reasonable to assume that either the writers didn't know the difference themselves, or they knew it, but decided to ignore it because they assumed the average layperson watching the show wouldn't know the difference. Had the writers wanted us to assume that House is dependent on, but not addicted to vicodin, they would have given us lay people the necessary background information, because if American doctors are that ignorant, we can't be expected to know better.

You are, of course, free to describe House any way you like, and in RL you'd probably be right. I'm also not saying that I approve of the way the writers have mixed up addiction and dependency; IMO they've done both pain sufferers dependent on their pain medication and true addicts a great disservice. But if you apply RL criteria to everything that happens in 'House MD', then the show makes no sense whatsoever anymore; you'd have to assume that House is a charlatan who pulls diagnoses out of his hat, because half the tests he orders can't be done in the time they take on the show. And how do you explain episodes like Small Sacrifices, where he jumps off a footstool, or Needle in a Haystack, where he rides a wheelchair down a flight of stairs without as much as wincing in pain? If I apply RL criteria there he must have been faking his pain the rest of the time, because there's no way either of that would work without major pain. But I don't assume he was faking it, nor do I make up some elaborate backstory that explains his sudden lack of pain. I assume the writers botched it up once again and totally forgot that they're writing about a chronic pain sufferer.

You can make up whatever backstory you like, but the moment your backstory leaves canon and what the writers put in the story, the only people who will agree with your reading of the episode are the ones who share your personal backstory.

They didn’t care what House, the patient, really needed and wanted.
You're assuming that you know what House needs and wants (hmm, sounds rather like Wilson, doesn't it?), and you're assuming that you know the motivating factors behind Wilson and Cuddy's behaviour. Perhaps they did care about what he really needed and wanted, but got it wrong. You may consider that a crime; I don't. I call that sort of thing a 'mistake', and people who make mistakes aren't bad in my eyes. They are wrong, that's all.

[damigella-314.livejournal.com]

I'm impressed by how much work you're putting in this. Frankly speaking, my brain can't really cope well with canon because of its inconsistencies: I watch the show because I watched one ep and fell in love, but I can't stomach most of the rest of TV.

So when I comment on an ep, my rational part is more or less switched off, and it's my (usually not very busy) emotions that get a chance to come out and play. Should I lock myself out of all comms because of that? If they ask me to (they're moderated for a reason). Should I stop writing my own rants in my own journal? Don't think so. Should I be aware of my prejudices, which are too numerous to count and heavier than a neutron star? I am. At least when I'm rational ;).

Thank you for making me more aware of this, though.

[readingrat.livejournal.com]

Should I be aware of my prejudices, which are too numerous to count and heavier than a neutron star? I am.
That's all I ask for. Why am I a Huddy? Not because I seriously and rationally think this is a good idea for either of them. It's because I believe that lonely, screwed-up women over forty have the same right to happiness as lonely screwed-up men over fifty. It's my personal fairy tale - if those two can make it, anyone can. But that doesn't blind me to all the arguments against it, and it certainly doesn't blind me to the fact that Cuddy's behaviour in parts of S5 and in the first fifteen episodes of S7 disqualifies her from any sort of relationship whatsoever. I know that I ignore canon when I postulate that anything of the sort could function. But I'm in good company - anyone who ships post-S7 House/Wilson totally ignores that Wilson's condo could well go the way of the Twin Towers if House decided to go on a rampage again.