MovieChat Forums > Scrubs (2001) Discussion > Question about "My Lunch"

Question about "My Lunch"

posted 8 years ago by msallison
7 replies | jump to latest

So, Jill Tracey dies of a supposed drug overdose and they use three of her organs for three different patients. We later find out she actually died from rabies and all of the patients become infected. Even without the rabies though, would they really use organs from someone who died of a drug overdose? Or, at least, had drugs in their system. What about the episode where they needed to give someone a liver, but Turk refused because the guy had champagne at a wedding like a month earlier?

On that note, they didn't wait for the autopsy? I know they assumed it was a drug overdose because cocaine was found through toxin screens but you know what happens when you assume. Like come on, they're doctors. They should have known to wait for an official cause of death before putting her organs in other patients. Don't get me wrong I'm in agreement here with most people on this board that this is one of the best/saddest episodes, and I do get choked up during the 'How to Save a Life' scene, but on my last rewatch I can't help but take a step back and think of the situation logically.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

would they really use organs from someone who died of a drug overdose?

I could be wrong, but I think when they do organ transplants they monitor the patient so much that any fluctuations can be adjusted.

but Turk refused because the guy had champagne at a wedding like a month earlier?

Different circumstances. Donor recipients are expected to abstain from alcohol and the such and be good steward for the organs they receive. It would be insulting to the memory of the person who gave their organs if the recipient drank, smoked, etc.

(I think Turk should have gone easier on the guy - it was his daughter's wedding not a night out with the guys.)

they didn't wait for the autopsy?

Autopsies take 6 - 8 weeks. Organs won't stay viable that long.

[–] rterrell23 8 years ago

I think a huge lawsuit would have hit sacred heart. No way that type of negligence goes un noticed by families and lawyers.

And as far as being a good steward for an organ, I get the point but it is a bad one. If I donate my organs I am doing so to give another person life. If they choose to enjoy life by drinking or smoking that is on them. I wouldn't wsant a person to not enjoy life because of my organ.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

No way that type of negligence goes un noticed by families and lawyers.

But is that really negligence? As in, my a-hole boss went off on it one day when he was talking about having to sign a waiver in case his daughter got hurt playing soccer. He ranted about how he would sue the coaches, ref's, league, etc if she got hurt.

He doesn't understand the difference between her getting hit in the face with the ball and it breaking her nose and the cross bar on the goal falling off and hitting her on the head.

Same thing here. An autopsy takes 6 - 8 weeks. Organs won't be viable that long. I'm sure they do some standard blood tests, but can only do so much.

Now, I'm sure that in the US there would be huge lawsuits, but that still doesn't mean it was negligent. It just means that in the US we have a "Lottery Lawsuit" mentality.

I get what you are saying about donating your organs. Don't quote me on that, but I think it really only applies to liver transplants. I can't see them squawking someone who is getting a lung transplant who has a beer or two on a Sunday afternoon.

But, at the same time, I do think people who are being responsible and healthy should get the first crack at a donated organ. As in, two guys have lung cancer from smoking, but one stopped smoking 10 years ago and the other is still a pack-a-day smoker.

Again, I think Turk should have stopped and said, "Ok. Let me ask this question again, because if you've had anything to drink, even if it was a glass of champagne at your daughter's wedding reception, it will cause me to boot you off the list. Now, have you had anything to drink?"

[–] aliholly-62819 8 years ago

It wasn't negligent. How the he-ll could they have suspected rabies? Autopsies aren't performed before organ transplants. The second that person dies the organs are harvested.

[–] mcgill_j 8 years ago

As much as it sucks though... There are PLENTY of other people who are also wanting, needing and waiting on that same list. I am guessing part of the reason for the stringent requirments.

[–] aliholly-62819 8 years ago

Organs are organs. Yes, they would use the organs of someone who died of an overdose. It was also not negligence on Dr. Cox's part. This story is actually based on a real case. The recipients of the organs died many months, even over a year, after the transplant though.

[–] dljobes83 8 years ago

Also, aside from 1 patient, the rest of the recipients were going to die very soon, and this was likely their last chance. The odds of someone dying of rabies has to be so small that it would not be worth testing for. Unfortunate but true.