MovieChat Forums > No Way Out Discussion > The Medical Stuff.

The Medical Stuff.

posted 16 years ago by rmax304823
8 replies | jump to latest

Poitier examines Widmark's brother and suspects a brain tumor. He examines his retina and then gives the patient a spinal tap. After that, the story makes it sound as if Poitier made a mistake, that his might have misdiagnosed the tumor, that he might have been "wrong," as Dr. Warden and the pathologist put it.

That's not how it works though. If the patient presents with a superficial gunshot wound but shows additional symptoms of a brain tumor -- disorientation, a swollen optic nerve disk, signs of intracranial pressure -- any responsible doctor would do the tests that Poitier did, if only to rule out a diagnosis of brain tumor. The only "mistake" would be in NOT doing the tests.

Instead of Dr. Warden saying (twice) that any good doctor might have done what Poitier did, he would have said that any good doctor SHOULD have done what Poitier did. As it stands, the tension is hyped but the medical stuff gets twisted into a fake contrast between "right" and "mistaken."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vince-volaju 15 years ago

Question: "And would it have been normal for a doctor to allow Ray Biddle to remain in the room shooting off his mouth like that and disturbing the doctor?"

Answer: NO. Not even in 1950 would a relative been allowed to remain in OR or ER room during a procedure.

I started watching the film after the medical procedure and Biddle's death, so I missed that part.

Hollywood doesn't always get it right. Sidney Poitier's character appears to have followed correct protocol.

[–] mmattagirl 15 years ago

Also I could not understand why there was not a nurse in the room while Dr Brooks was carrying out the procedure on the brother who died. A physican is awfully exposed without help and a witness, IMHO.

George... don't do that!

[–] bradford-1 14 years ago

All kinds of medical and legal procedures seen in old movies appear very primitive to "modern" eyes. Take a gander at MEN IN WHITE (1933) if you really want to see strange hospital procedures.
You ever notice in most pre-1970's films that most criminal suspects are questioned repeatedly without a lawyer present? And that said suspects usually never even ASK to see a lawyer?

[–] dlg-2 9 years ago

Miranda V Arizona didn't happen until 1966. Cops had no incentive to protect your 5th amendment rights prior. in most cases they still don't.

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Medical practice of the time was quite different than currently also.

[–] vpilutis 13 years ago

I had a tap when I was 14 and there were two nurses helping the doctor

See some stars here
http://www.vbphoto.biz/

[–] skiddoo 13 years ago

Dr. Warden is cautious. He says a doctor would have ordered the tests but he isn't willing to say there was no chance for error. A doctor working in a hospital prison ward in that era would have a limited budget and would have to be frugal with tests, looking for every other possibility first to save money. Understaffing would be another problem. The issue was pressed by both the brother's accusations and Dr. Brooks' lack of confidence and need for the reassurance of the autopsy.

We see this question today in whether the poor and those without insurance should have first rate or second rate medical care.