Skip to main content

Practising medicine in medical practice?

Side Effects (2013)
A new thriller involving the medical profession and how the medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies and the patients themselves upset a system of healing which is portrayed as a wishy-washy pseudo-science where treatment seem to be dictated by the drug companies' promises and patients' choice rather then the medical professionals taking the lead. Everybody wants a good life, hence to need to cut corners and dump ethics and professionalism. Of course with Hollywood, you must have extramarital liaisons and even same sex affairs! And they say Bollywood is masala....
Emily is ecstatic to usher in her husband who is just released from jail after 4 years for insider trading. She seem to be listless, not enjoying intimate time with her guy. One day, she hit her car purposely on a concrete wall and is hospitalized for  concussion. Dr Banks (Jude Law) is the assigned psychiatrist to treat her.
Her past medical history revealed that she had been treated by a Dr Seibert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) as a teenager for depression.
After a series of failed treatment and side effects with a plethora of anti depressives, Emily is prescribed Ablixa which is shown to have tremendous positive effects on her daily life. A minor side effect, somnambulism (sleep walking) is passed off by Dr Banks as a harmless side effect.
One day, Emily stabs her husband to death in one of this sleep walking episodes. This episode opens a can of worms - Banks is shown to be an overworking overloaded doctor, unethical doctor who allegedly had an unsavoury conduct with one of his female patients. His partners decide to terminate his partnership and his wife walks out on him with his stepson. Dr Seibert, who had suggested to Dr Banks about using Albixa actually had discovered the side effect of sleep walking.
Emily is found not guilty on reason of insanity. Dr Banks loses more than just his reputation and has to go on spree to discover the truth.
To cut through all the mumbo jumbo, Dr Banks discover a complex plot between Dr Seibert and her lesbian girlfriend, Emily, to use the side effect to kill off her husband who had deprived her of a luxurious life.
In the end, Dr Banks is reunited with his wife and her son from a previous marriage.
A disturbing observation that is also seen here is how pharmaceutical companies have clout on doctors' decision to prescribe a particular drug. As a grateful Pavlov's dog, the doctors, many of whom are nicely padded with the companies freebies, free lunches, sponsored conferences in places remotely linked to medicine like Las Vegas, feel compelled to oblige for services rendered! The business minded world has pushed advertisement of drugs to the limit that patients themselves feel that a particular other medicine would be better in their condition, just because so-and-so is using it and feels better. It looks like the doctor is just a lame duck sitting there just to receive the brickbats in case something goes wrong.
fictitious drug!
Gone are days where the paternalistic role of doctors is treasured and given utmost credence. Now, he is just another employer in the 'system' with vested interest!
If being pelleted from all sides is not enough, in Dr Banks' case, it appears like he also has to do things to please his wife and stepson. Even though he is the only breadwinner of the family at the time of crisis, the dynamics of his family dictates that he is longer the head of the family. Even in crisis, his wife is not standing by him but rather she walks out on him. The husband in present day modern family is just a castrated tiger who has not only been domesticated but has lost his majestic roar and respect. He seem to living a life just to keep his subjects (family members) contented and provided for....Kabish? capisce? Comprende? 

Comments

  1. The other side of docs in material world.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gory historic details or gore fest?

Razakar:  The Silent Genocide Of Hyderabad  (Telegu, 2024) Director:  Yata Satyanarayana In her last major speech before her disposition, Sheikh Hasina accused those who opposed her rule in Bangladesh of being Razakars. The opposition took offence to this term and soon widespread mob throughout the land. Of course, it is not that that single incident brought down an elected government but a culmination of joblessness and unjust reservations for a select population group. In the Bengali psyche, Razakar is a pejorative term meaning traitor or Judas. It was first used during the 1971 Pakistan Civil War. The paramilitary group who were against the then-East Pakistani leader, Majibur Rehman, were pro-West Pakistan. After establishing independence in Bangladesh, Razakars were disbanded, and many ran off to Pakistan. Around the time of Indian independence, turmoil brewed in the princely state of Hyderabad, which had been a province deputed by the Mughals from 1794. The rule of N...

The products of a romantic star of the yesteryear!

Now you see all the children of Gemini Ganesan (of four wives, at least) posing gleefully for the camera after coming from different corners of the world to see the ailing father on his deathbed. They seem to found peace with the contributor of their half of their 46 chromosomes. Sure, growing up must have been hell seeing their respective mothers shedding tears, indulgence in unhealthy activities with one of them falling prey to the curse of the black dog, hating the sight of each step sibling, their respective heartaches all because of the evil done by one man who could not put his raging testesterones under check! Perhaps,the flashing lights and his dizzying heights that his career took clouded his judgement. After all, he was only human... Gems of Gemini Ganesan L-R: Dr Revathi Swaminathan, Narayani Ganesan, Dr Kamala Selvaraj, Rekha, Vijaya Chamundeswari   and Dr Jaya Shreedhar.  ( Abs:  Radha Usman Syed, Sathish Kumaar Ganesan) Seeing six of Ge...

Chicken's Invite? (Ajak-ajak ayam)

In the Malay lingo, the phrase 'ajak-ajak ayam' refers to an insincere invitation. Of course, many of us invite for courtesy's sake, but then the invitee may think that the invitation is for real! How does anyone know? Inviters and invitees must be smart enough to take the cue that one party may have gatecrashed with ulterior motives, or the other may not want him to join in the first place! Easily twenty years ago, my family was invited to a toddler's birthday party. As my children were toddlers, too, we were requested to come early so that my kids could run around and play in their big compound. And that the host said she would arrange a series of games for them to enjoy. So there we were in the early evening at a house that resembled very little of one immersed in joy and celebration. Instead, we were greeted by a house devoid of activities and no guests. The host was still out shopping her last-minute list, and her helper was knee-deep in her preparations to ...