So, who is annoyed with Luka? : LUSENET : ER Discussions : One Thread

Well, I didn't think this was possible, but Luka really got on my nerves in "May Day." I have really loved this character, but I am seeing another side of him now that is hard to take. I know, he can't be perfect or he would be boring, but I don't like the way he wants everyone to do what he thinks is best.

I feel like Luka is trying to control the outcome of every situation, which is understandable considering what he has been through with the death of his family and his inability to save them. But no matter what a person has been through in the past, it is morally wrong to try to impose your will on other people. I understand that the people who killed Luka's family very effectively controlled the future course of Luka's life and that is a real tragedy. But Luka's actions aren't really excusable in any circumstances, trying to control other people and decide what will (or will not) happen to them is unfair.

Luka did not have a choice in what happened to his family and in how their deaths affected his life. But when people DO have choices in life, they should be allowed to make those choices for themselves. People have a right to make their own decisions, good or bad, and Luka does not have the right to take those choices from others. If he does, he is rendering them as helpless as he was and you would think that he would not want anyone to feel powerless as he once did

As for his decision to take the boy and not the shooter to the hospital in the helicopter, I understand why he did what he did, but it wasn't his decision to make. Should doctors only treat the "good guys"? And if so, "good" by what standards? As others have said in another thread, Luka might be trying to play God, and he shouldn't be. There is an old joke: What is the difference between God and a doctor? The answer: God doesn't think he's a doctor. Does Luka think he's God? Probably not. But he is trying to make decisions for other people, and that is just wrong.

-- Annie (, May 20, 2000


Annoyed with Luka? No way! As a teacher, I can totally understand his feeling that the injured kid should go before the shooter. Morally and ethically I feel that his choice was right. The shooter knew that he was putting his life on the line when he came to the playground with the gun; that poor kid did not. The shooter made his choice when he pulled the trigger; that boy had no choice.

As for the woman, I wanted him to do the C-section. As a woman who has lost two babies to miscarriage, it was tough to watch that woman choose not to have that baby. I sobbed as the heartrate went down and finally ceased, because that child did not have to die. Regardless of the psychiatrists evaluation, I think she must have had some mental problem and that they should have saved that child. Luka, with all his past experiences, coudl not just do nothing. He went through the proper steps (court order, etc.) and in the end, could do nothing. Very sad for him, but not annoying.

Doctors make decisions for other people every single day. Some are small ones, but others are life altering ones. That is a fact. We put our lives into these people's hands, and we have to trust that they are going to look out for our best interests, whatever they may be at the time. He did this in both cases,for the boy and the baby, even though he could only save one.

-- Sarah (, May 20, 2000.

I have to agree with what Luka did in both situations. I do believe his past had something to do with it, I don't believe he made wrong decisions based on his past. The shot kid-- you know, I totally agree with what he did. Without even going into the killer's future, had he lived (death row, probably), we have to consider that the kid had no choice that day, as someone above said. The killer did. I think the "good" and "bad" part doesn't really have anything to do with it... the "victim" and "killer" part does. Also, about that lady and her baby-- I think he made the right choice there, and whether or not he lost his job would have been small compared to the fact that he saved a life. I thought Luka was very heroic and whether or not my kids were killed, I would have made the same decision. That woman had no right to take her baby's life, no matter what happened in her own.

-- Marie (, May 20, 2000.

i am not annoyed. this just proves what a caring doctor Luka is. he can work on me any day!! :)

-- ALexis Springer (, May 20, 2000.

Yay, Sarah and Marie...I am so glad I found other Luka supporters. We have been discussing him under WOW WOW WOW down further and I think I was about the only one supporting him ! :)

-- amanda (, May 20, 2000.

I hate to be the voice of dissent, but think about this, folks: What if you yourself were in a medical situation where you had to make a choice about your future, a complicated or complex choice, and the doctor in charge of you turned around and said "Nope. You're going to do what I think is right." Doctors should not be doing this. Admittedly, there are times when we can't let people do the destructive things they want to do to themselves. For example, if someone is addicted to drugs, we don't let them keep using. If someone is suicidal, we don't hand them a razor blade. But a doctor has to treat the good with the bad. A doctor is no jury to decide on the death sentence for someone who has not had their day in court, a doctor cannot pick and choose who is the nicest candidate for a new kidney, and a doctor cannot tell a woman what to do with her body. Not in this country. Imagine what kind of precedent this sort of behavior would set. Again I ask what YOU would do if the freedom to choose were taken away from you. And finally, as Phyl has often commented in these pages, try to see the shades of grey in these situations. Not everything is black and white.

-- Cecelia (, May 20, 2000.

Yes, I was annoyed at Luka. I mean, I understand what he must be thinking, and in our hearts we all wish we could do what Luka did, but in the medical world (real or fictional) if doctors are allowed to do this, the system would be terribly screwed. It's not for the doctors to decide who lives, who dies. That's the law of a higher power, if you choose to believe in Him. Isn't there something mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath about not being judgmental? Besides, that shooter was somebody's son, somebody's father, some mother would be mourning for him. As for being hard on Luka, well i wasn't too pleased when Carter did his thing in Carter's Choice, but he partially redeemed himself when he admitted what he was thinking to Anna. (And I thought he was in a sticky situation because he'd just treated that rape victim a couple hours before the rapist came in.)

-- samira (, May 20, 2000.

Good point about the Hippocratic Oath, Samira. It does say, "First, do no harm." I'm pretty sure that means "to anyone."

-- Cecelia (, May 20, 2000.

Its me again! Sorry! I just wanted to make a couple of points. I do not recall Luka EVER going against a patient's wishes until this epi with the pregnant girl. I think we can all agree that this was a rather different (and shocking!) situation. And he did the correct thing by trying to get a court order first. As for the kidney transplant patient...I am sure the people who are on waiting lists are given guidelines to follow while they are waiting for a new organ. And I would be willing to bet that drug use is one of the things they are told NOT to do and would be a perfectly acceptable reason for being denied the organ. Elizabeth even said if the lady from Indiana could get there in time and was a match and could be cleared for surgery that they would give it to her instead. I do agree with Elizabeth to go ahead and give him the organ rather than to let it go to waste. IMO, Luka is a long way from beign the kind of doctor that you guys mentioned. And he did take the "Hypocratic Oath" (sp) which says treat everyone and I am sure to him that meant that girls unwanted child.

-- amanda (, May 20, 2000.

Every medical professional in the world (I am an R.N.) is in a position every day to "play God" in the sense that we by nature of the title and the uniform exert some degree of influence over the decisions of our patient/client. We all respond to situations from the framework of our own life experience. If anyone thinks she or he is completely objective, that person is kidding him/herself. Luka's response to situations is completely in character with his life story, which includes more powerlessness, horror, and death than most of us could imagine. I think the writers are *intending* him to "get on our nerves* at this point in the development of the Kovac character.

-- Deb W. (, May 20, 2000.

Yes, I was annoyed with Luka, because he was starting to behave just like Abby and Carol. He's getting awfully self-righteous and came dangerously close to forcing his personal feelings on a patient's right to self-determination. For once I was glad Cleo was around, but what was with the nurse who handed him the scalpel? Her license was on the line, too.

-- Chessie King (, May 20, 2000.

One important background piece to remember about Luka is that he is a Catholic from a Eastern European culture, where saving the life of the baby takes priority over the mother and her wishes. Until very recently in here in the States (mid-70s), this was the prevailing rule and not only in Catholic hospitals. Remember del Amico with the mother who wanted an abortion? She could not participate, either, and Kerry called her on the carpet for it. "Letting" a baby die is a form of abortion, as well, and this was a viable fetus. I found his response to be totally believable and in character.

-- Indira (, May 21, 2000.

True, Luka's behavior was in character, for him--which is disturbing. He needs to remember what country he's in, because we have a little thing called the Supreme Court who would have some very strong words about a doctor who goes against a woman's wishes regarding her unborn child. It was a complicated situation, but Chessie is right. Luka is becoming very...invasive, it seems, trying to impress his own feelings of justice upon patients. Morally he may be in the right, sometimes, but LEGALLY he is getting himself into serious trouble.

Check out the other threads, "Wouldn't the pregnant girl be charged with murder?" and "WOWOWOWOW Spoiler" for some other debates on this issue with Luka. Lots of people have very strong feelings about it, all around.

-- Cecelia (, May 21, 2000.

I see this a little differently...there was a short time factor going on here with the baby so he had to push and pressure to try to change her mind. And she was eight months pregnant...a time when the child can live outside the womb. These two factors had me cheering him on to try any means to save the baby. In the end, he DID do what the 18- year old woman, whom I think was disturbed wanted. He also hung in there and delivered the baby, even pronouncing it's time of death (though I think that should have been when the fetal monitor went to 0). I hope he never finds out that the court came through, a couple of hours to late, on his (and the baby's) side.

-- Diana (, May 21, 2000.

Please let me add that eventually Luka did let the rule of law prevail in this instance against his own strong feelings, whereas Golden Boy Doug would not have done the same.

-- Indira (, May 21, 2000.

this ia about the rigths of the unborn and it is a grey and oftern emotive subject. in many aspects of law a child is not a child till it has been born. But poor old Luka was bound by legal obligations and it is not his fault. I don't agree with that aspect of law but understand it. I considerd all my children to be people before they where born to the point that with my last child his birth was a non event to me. He was a part of my family and a part of our lives all through the pregancy. I felt no difrent about him the day before he was born when he was born it simply ment we got to see him and hold him but he had been there for the last nine months. I felt sorry for the mother it is sad to see that for her she had grown to resent the child not love it.

-- kerri (, May 21, 2000.

Actually, Indira, if you've watched ER from the very beginning, there were very many times when Doug did back down when asked, specifically with Jad Hueston, Chia-Chia, and the teenaged homosexual Haleh badgered him about. There is a larger context to his actions than just the last few things that character did. I don't recall Doug ever giving any preferential treatment in trauma. In fact, he'd saved gangbangers and criminals many times.

In this and similar discussions, it would be nice if people who support Luka's point of view could defend his actions based upon what he did and why you agree, and not have to do the Doug finger point thing. I'm 98% finished with my review and not once did I have to invoke another doctor's name and their actions in previous episodes to bolster my opinion about Luka's.

-- Phyl (, May 21, 2000.

Great Point Phyl..Its ridiculous to invoke the law of Doug here. I was very irritated with Luka in this last episode. My roomate told me that if it had been Doug, it would have been ok. Well maybe so. I trust Doug's judgement...on hospital concerns anyway. But I haven't known Luka that long. He seemed really desperate. When it comes to the pregnant girl, he was acting ridiculously. This was a scared girl, and he treated her as if she was some tramp that just didnt care about anything. Doug would have never done that by the way. He would have been right there trying to respect and understand that girl's feelings. Didn't it seem that everyone was doing the Doug at least once this year. Carter, Carol, and even Kerry broke a hospital rule or two in favor of helping someone out. Interesting, I thought. As for the picking the victim over the shooter. That is wrong. I have seen people write "as a so-and-so...I know what its like to...well whatever. I respect your feelings, but as a person, I would like to have doctor's practicing medicine and not law. You follow procedures with respect to who gets treated first and do not allow that kind of thing to determine the decision...Period. Its not for anyone to decide. Id just like to say that I liked this season. One of Transition clearly. But I liked it a lot.

-- Tom Andrews (, May 21, 2000.

BTW, if I read it right on the NARAL site...IF this girl had come in for an abortion Luka would NOT have to do it if it went against his religious beliefs. It is just kind of ironic how the law varies when it is stated the girl was coming in for an abortion vs trying to kill her own child and then refusing the necessary medical treatment.

On another point about doctors obeying their patient's wishes...I just read an article recently about a medical ethicist (I forget which hopsital she was from but it was on the East coast somewhere) talking about blood transfusions and certain religions that do not allow them. She stated that if someone came in who was of that religion and was in a car accident or something and needed blood and was unconcious and even if they knew that person was of this religion (I guess they carry some sort of ID card) that doctor's often time give them the blood anyway (sorry for the run-on sentence). I thought that was interesting. Just a real life example to show that doctor's don't always follow their patient's wishes.

-- amanda (, May 22, 2000.

Amanda, that's a liability matter. If the patient is unconscious, he/she cannot be consulted about the blood transfusion. Without written orders to withhold life-saving treatment or a verbal refusal from the patient to accept it, the doctors have to give it. Otherwise, the patient may die and the relatives could sue the hospital and physicians, claiming that their relative wasn't serious about "that part" of their religion.

-- Chessie King (, May 22, 2000.

I wish I could find that article to reread it...all I remember was that she (the medical ethicist) made a point of saying that it was a problem -- even when the doctors knew that the patient is of that religion which is against blood transfusions (I don't want to say it here because I do not want to get into a debate on religion) it is STILL being done. I remember this because I had just taken a class that discussed this religion and their strong beliefs about blood transfusions and how they can be excommunicated from everything they know if they have a blood transfusion. I wondered HOW the doctors could do such a thing even when the patient didn't want it.

-- amanda (, May 22, 2000.

I was NOT annoyed with Luka at all. I think he was right on the money with both decisions. His reason for taking the boy on the helicopter was that County was the closest pediatric trauma center and was too far by ambulance whereas the shooter could go to the closest adult ER which was Mercy Hospital and (I think) only 10 min by ambulance. Also, I think he was right not to just say "yes" to Kerry when she wanted him to lay off the c/s issue. He went through all the proper channels to help the baby--he DID start with the mother, then the OB, then the Psychiatrist, and the court system. He even realized that doing a c/s after he ordered the Ketamine was pointless at that time because the baby had been in distress too long. Cleo did have her shining moment in getting him to realize this before it was too late. (Just an aside, the girl looked too healthy to have stabbed herself and be having an abruption--they should have made her look pale and her vital signs more unstable). That final scene was just TOO SAD--his day started with kids getting shot and he can't even savor the fact that he saved that boy's life because of Benton getting in his face (I'm sure we'll see some more confrontations between those two in the future) and it ends with pronouncing a baby's death and having absolutely no one to talk to about all this. Give the guy a break!

-- (, May 23, 2000.

Luka was completley wrong on both cases...however he was also completely believable. A character doesn't have to be right to be interesting and the helicopter scene was excellent. I think his actions with the pregnant girl were disgusting, however. How dare he pass judgment? But, as I said, it seemed realistic.

My faves are Carter and Romano and I certainly don't agree with everything they do! Conflict makes interesting stories!

-- Rusty Priske (, May 23, 2000.

Rusty, I have to disagree with you a little, although your point is well taken. If everyone always did the right thing, this would be a hokey sitcom -- or worse, Providence, not a well-written drama. (And I guess I'm disagreeing with many people, including TPTB on this site, as well.) As someone else pointed out above, Luka did do what the girl wanted, in the end. I don't think we can fault him for trying until the last possible second to change her mind. I know I would have begged, pleaded, prayed, threatened . . . anything to keep her from making an irrevocable decision that couldn't be fixed if she changed her mind -- like Abby's line to the overworked mom-of-five, "I'd hate for you to change your mind later." (Plus, I've litigated way too many "why didn't you save me from myself" cases.)

Also, I infer from one of the early episodes that Luka is devoutly Catholic (he pretends to be a priest in order to give last rites). To stand by and watch someone die when you could be doing something to stop it must be hell.

In the other hour of grownup TV I get to watch a week, The West Wing, there was a storyline where the President was struggling with whether to commute a death sentence and stop an imminent execution. Basically, should he let his own moral opposition to capital punishment override the will of the people/rule of law. He consults people of different faiths (and learns an interesting factoid: no executions occur on Saturdays or Sundays because they are the nation's Sabbath days) and finally decides not to commute. At 12:02 a.m. Monday, he's in the Oval Office with his priest, when he gets the call that the prisoner has been executed. The priest looks at him and says, "I'll hear your confession now."

All that to say this: It's a "Pontius Pilate moment, (tm dana)" where you could act to save someone's life, every moral fiber in your body tells you to, and you do nothing. In his mind, heart and soul, he is complicit in a murder because he could have acted but didn't.

John Carter, with therapy, will eventually realize that nothing he could have done would have saved Lucy's life, and he'll be okay. Luka will never get over this.

-- dana (, May 23, 2000.

Question, and I don't know the answer: If Luka were devoutly Catholic, would he not value all human life? Are most practicing Catholics against the death penalty, even for the most heinous crimes? If so, would that have affected his decision that the killer's life was not worth saving?

-- Phyl (, May 23, 2000.

LOL. Good point Phyl. I don't think he's ever been presented as particularly "devout." He just prefers to whack bad guys with his Stethoscope O' Justice.

-- Cecelia (, May 24, 2000.

BTW, Yes, a good Catholic values all life and is against the death penalty. A GOOD, practicing Catholic. Although, as with many religions, there are Catholics who pick and choose which parts of their dogma to live by and which to ignore. They may go to mass on Sunday, but still have abortions, approve of the death penalty, and so forth. So Luka may think of himself as Catholic, but still have some less religious ideas of the pecking order of life.

-- Cecelia (, May 24, 2000.

That's a good question, Phyl. I think part of the answer lies in the fact that Luka saw it as a choice between the boy ("innocent") and the shooter ("not innocent"), not as a matter of taking off in an empty helicopter and leaving the guy to die on the asphalt.

-- dana (, May 24, 2000.

You make a good point. My point is, if he were devoutly Catholic, would he have extended his thinking to include the fact that the gunman's life was more critical, and that even though the guy was a murderer, his life was sacred, as human life is? It's really a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer :)

-- Phyl (, May 24, 2000.

Thanks for the discussion, Phyl. I feel like I'm back in college. Reasonable minds can differ, but at least this program is interesting and complex enough to raise the issue. Have a nice summer break.

-- dana (, May 24, 2000.

I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian, and I do believe in the death penalty, because it's Biblical. No one person has the right to decide who should live or die, because that is the prerogative of God. The consequences to a person who tries to play God are soul-killing. However, God has invested in the state the authority to execute justice, and the Old Testament clearly states that death is the penalty for murder (the New Testament does not address the issue because that's not what it's about). I recognize that this is an issue on which good people will disagree.

-- Felicity (, May 24, 2000.


I like your post and don't want to stray too far from ER but I have to disagree with the parallels to President Bartlett on West Wing. The reason it was hard for him wasn't because he did the right thing even though he didn't like it. What seemed to be the message from that episode is that he knew he had done wrong...he just knew it a little too late. He let a man die due to political expediency.

This actually goes back to what I said about good characters...they make mistakes.

BTW, I firmly believe that the death penalty is always wrong. Period.

-- Rusty Priske (, May 24, 2000.

It does say in the Bible "an eye for an eye". The baby Luka tried to save was a total innocent. Whereas the gunman was a murderer so maybe, being a religious person, that came into play during his reasoning process. He did say "Your patient murders people".

On a related may not be right but just think of the outcry that would have occurred had Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine) been helped medically, before some of their victims, and saved while numerous victims died. As I said it may not be right but I am sure it would have happened.

-- amanda (, May 24, 2000.

Okay, I'm going to delve into religion because it is important to make this distinction: The principle "an eye for an eye" is an Old Testament principle. Jesus, in his New Testament teachings, said that the old ways are not his ways. "Love your brother as you would love yourself." He taught his followers to turn the other cheek and forgive, and that God is the only judge. Therefore, a follower of Jesus would not ascribe to "an eye for an eye," but would realize Jesus taught a better way. And that's as far into Christianity as I'm delving here. :)

-- Phyl (, May 24, 2000.

Rusty: Actually, that is my point. On the West Wing, the president bowed to political expediency and rationalizations. The reasons he gave were ethically, legally, and politically valid -- one person cannot override the rule of law. But the decision was inconsistent with what he knew, morally, to be right. As you say, he let a man die for the sake of political expediency. I see the same with Luka. Letting that baby die went against what he believed in as a doctor and as a human being. In the end, though, he blinked, and saved his license and his job. I wouldn't be surprised if he, too, went to confession afterwards.

-- dana (, May 24, 2000.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Phyl. One of the problems I have with so many people who are pro-life (on the abortion issue) they are often (not always!) pro death penalty. I believe in respecting life from both ends. And I (reluctantly) go back to scripture on this: Jesus talked about it being easy to love someone and what's the glory (my word) in that, that loving someone hard is where the real love is. It's easy to love a little, innocent baby...what about someone who has done something absolutely atrocious? IMO, this kind of thinking is judgemental in itself and there's other scripture on that, but I'll stop there.

-- Diana (, May 24, 2000.

I wasn't going to get into this but after reading all of the commentary and of course going for a cheap shot with the Doug-o-meter, I decided why not. We have, for the last 5 seasons had Doug held up to us as some kind of misunderstood super doctor. It has killed me how many times he has imposed his values on patients and everybody thinks its in the best interest of the patient. So valiant, so caring, such crap. But now we shouldn't bring him into it, just judge Luka for Luka. Pretty hard, pretty inevitable to do just that. As for judging, who can say what they would do in that situation. You can say what you think you might do but until confronted, who can say? How did religion get into this. By inference; you think that Luka is devout, because he gave a blessing to comfort a dying patient. He said himself he was faking it,that any one can give a blessing, (just count how many next time you sneeze.)Would the reaction be the same if it was Doug that had told Peter no? I doubt it would even be an issue.

-- Casey (, May 24, 2000.

Well, I wasn't going to get into this, because for the most part, I have enjoyed May Day and Carter's storyline, and I didn't want to get into this dismal part of the show, but I do like Luka, so I'll add something. I only had time to skim this thread, so if I'm being redundant, I'm sorry. The thing is, Luka was wrong, and I'm glad Cleo was there to rationalize for him. He was being self/righteous, but we've seen Doug, Carol, Carter, Kerry, etc. do this too, because of their own personal issues and weaknesses (and I don't mean weaknesses in a bad way, I mean that they are sensitive to certain issues...Carol to babies, Kerry to people with disabilities, Doug to abused children, etc.) We saw Carol react in the same way when a mother came in to find out the gender of her baby, and Carol screamed after her about whehter she was going to abort the child because of the gender. Carol did not hesitate to help Carter with the dialysis machine either. Yes, Carol and Luka (and Doug!) are very much alike. But back to Luka, he has seen more than any of these doctors, most likely, have seen, and he is most likely traumatized by them. Even though it is wrong, I would probably have reacted the same way if I was him. The silence in the room, the looks on Luka's (and even Chuney's) faces, was depressing, knowing that this girl was going through a "supposed to be joyful" experience. She had choosen to give birth to a dead baby. But I respect other's opinions here too. Although, when I rewatch this, I hate watching the touching Benton/Carter scene, and then having to switch to this disturbing scene.

-- Elaine (, May 24, 2000.

"Stethoscope O' Justice!" I love it! Maybe they can do a third Law & Order spin-off with Luka in a superhero suit swooping throughout Chicago and single-handedly deciding life and death issues for all us lowly ill (and morally bankrupt, apparently) folks who can't make those decisions ourslves - with his glorious stethoscope O' Justice. (oh... wait.... that's kind of what they're doing now on E.R.)... yeah.

Re - morality and medicine, broadly speaking - here in Canada, pharmacists have gotten on their high horses in some regions by launching a consceince campaign that would allow them to refuse to dispense the morning after pill (AND refuse to advise customers as to where they can get their medication). Very creepy...

-- Jenn (, May 24, 2000.

I'm going to attempt to address the death penalty issue again. There is a huge difference between justice administered by the state through rule of law and a single person that authority into his or her hands. It's really not the same thing. The condemned murderer was arrested, enough evidence was found for the DA to consider it worthwhile prosecuting, there was a court trial with judge and jury, the accused was represented by attorney, and after the first conviction, you can be sure there was an appeal. Someone earlier in this thread suggested that since Christians should love our enemies, this applies to not supporting the death penalty. Should we love them? Of course we should. Does this mean that they should not be held accountable for their actions? Sorry, they should. Would I be upset if the death penalty was abolished in all 50 states? Probably not.

-- Felicity (, May 24, 2000.

I agree with you Felicity. It's a distinction that a lot of people seem to be forgetting regarding this thread: LEGALLY Luka had no right to administer the shooter's death penalty sentence. LEGALLY He had no right to force his values on that woman. MORALLY, I think most of us understand and empathize with his feelings. An innocent boy needed to be saved, an unrepentant shooter should be punished, and an innocent baby should have been born and given up for adoption to a loving couple. But LEGALLY, he could not bring those things about on his own. We have laws and courts for a reason.

Religion is a very personal and private thing, but Luka must remember that he is a doctor, bound to uphold the law and the Hippocratic Oath. I don't believe in bashing people's personal beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. It raises an interesting question for me, however. I remember an older episode with (I think) DelAmico refusing to finish an abortion on a woman who'd been injured in a clinic bombing. There were other doctors available to perform the procedure, but if DelAmico had done it, her personal beliefs would have been violated. Where do doctors draw the line? I personally think that no doctor should be faced with a situation that would force them to compromise their morals, any more than a patient's rights/values should be turned aside in favor of the doctor's. Seriously, how are such things handled? Do you sign a paper when they hire you saying "I am pro-life and will not perform abortions?"

Sorry for rambling...I try to be more coherent usually, but I just had surgery myself...At least I didn't get thumped by the Stethoscope O' Justice!

-- Cecelia (, May 25, 2000.

allright, here's my two cents. that shooter at the sorry but i think Luka did the right thing, sorry!!!! if that was my kid, i would expect them to take him first!!! if i was Luka, i wouldve done the same thing! bravo, luka!

-- ALexis Springer (, May 25, 2000.

Hi I can't stand Luka in any episode. I don't like him at all.

-- Kim (, March 19, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ