In which I make the mistake of having an opinion about The Voice and disability.

Saturday night saw the final of The Voice on BBC1. Yes, I watch The Voice. Deal with it. It was won by Andrea Begley, who has a severe visual impairment.

But why am I mentioning her disability before her (really rather good) voice, you ask? Well frankly, it was impossible to ignore, the show rammed it down our throats so much.

• Every video, every link, it was mentioned.
• I began to think her middle name was Inspirational. Andrea Inspirational Begley. What makes her inspirational over any of the other competitors? Could it be...maybe...nope. No idea. At all. /sarcasm
• In training videos, Andrea dressed pretty much like the other female competitors: skinny jeans, heels, fitted tops. This makes me suspect that the way she was styled for each show was not her own taste, and was possibly designed to elicit the "ahh" factor. While the other women were in short skirts and tight trousers, Andrea was wearing what I described one week as "my first grown up party dress, aged 12". And always, always the milk-bottle glasses, reminding us of her visual impairment, though I discovered on Google Images while finding pictures for this post that in fact she doesn't always wear them. This chimes with the infantilisation of disabled people, seen as permanently child-like, their every achievement seen as more praiseworthy than that of someone able-bodied.
• Andrea's coach on the show, Danny O'Donoghue, habitually referred to her as having "the voice of an angel". Andrea's voice is good, but I wouldn't characterise it as particularly angelic. (What does an angel sound like anyway?) Could this be an example of a disabled person being perceived as the eternal innocent? During one of her songs, the tangentially relevant My Immortal, the production even projected a pair of angel wings behind Andrea's shoulders. One (non-disabled) person on my Twitter timeline commented that Andrea was lucky to be blind: she couldn't see them.

So far, so irritating. This was when I made my big mistake. Immediately after the result was announced, I tweeted the following.

Tweeted in anger, I fully admit, and also in pique because my favourite, Leah McFall, hadn't won. But I thought the meaning was clear, specifically the use of the word "if". IF you voted for Andrea because you think she has a wonderful voice, that's cool. But IF you voted for her because she's disabled and brave and inspiring and aww,  then...well, the tweet says it.

Twitter's a funny place, though. If you dare to express an opinion, there are quite a few people who won't actually bother to read it properly, and just attack you instead. I was called quite a variety of things, most of which I wouldn't repeat on here. My block button was red-hot.

But the interesting thing was that several of them said I was the first person to mention that Andrea was blind. Really? Had they been watching the same show I had? Some of what I've mentioned above is fairly subtle, I agree, but the show had been blatant in their mentions of her disability, from her audition on.

As had Andrea herself, in fact. Despite saying she wanted to be judged on her voice rather than her disability, she talked about it in nearly every video. Reality show contestants are always victims to the edit, of course, but editors can only take things out, not add them in.

So what conclusions can I draw from this? I could try not to have so many opinions...but I don't think that's going to happen any day soon. I definitely need not to engage with trolls, just to ignore and block them. I don't need the stress. But you know, isn't it kind of worrying how ingrained disablism is in our society, that people don't even notice something as obvious as this?

PS As I've finished typing this, there's been an interview with Andrea on BBC Breakfast News. First question. "Tell us about your sight?"

The Impossible Girl (spoilers) #DoctorWho #Spoonie

Last night was the season finale of Doctor Who. I  thought it was one of the best episodes for quite some time, certainly the best of the season. But it also got me to thinking. A major theme was losing and gaining control - both for the Doctor and his current companion, Clara. And that's also a huge issue for spoonies, people with long-term illnesses that cause crippling fatigue.

The baddies in this episode were the Whispermen, who kidnap the Doctor's friends Clara, Vastra, Jenny and Strax to lure him to the one place he must never go: his grave, on the planet Trenzalore.

When we become ill, it's as if we've been kidnapped and taken to a different planet. We are snatched away from our everyday lives, held hostage by the limitations of our conditions.

There is no body in the Doctor's tomb. Instead there is a time tunnel, made of scar tissue from all the Doctor's travels through time and space. The villain of the piece, the Great Intelligence (hammed up wonderfully by Richard E. Grant) enters the time tunnel, aiming to split itself into fragments scattered throughout the Doctor's timeline and corrupt it absolutely, undoing all the good he's done.

Clara follows it into the time tunnel in an attempt to reverse the damage. Things take place around her. Previous incarnations of the Doctor run by. At first she feels out of control. She has no idea what's going on.

Gradually she works out her purpose. The Doctor is always there, though not always in the same form. She can recognise the best thing for the Doctor to do: she saves his life.

It's the same for us. At first, everything is confusion and feeling out of control. Fatigue, pain, brain fog. But gradually, a pattern emerges. We work out what to do. How to live our lives in the best possible way for ourselves and those around us. Maybe we're not saving the Doctor (or maybe you are?) but in our own way we're time lords, pacing and resting so we can do the things we really want to do.

We're the impossible girls and boys. We learn our purpose. We regain control over our lives.

We're spoonies.

PCC reply to my complaint about Daily Mail cartoon

I complained to the Press Complaints Commission about this cartoon, which was published in the Daily Mail on 25th February 2013.

This is their reply.

Commission’s decision in the case of

Various v Daily Mail

A number of complainants expressed concern regarding a cartoon which had accompanied an article about Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The cartoon had depicted a man with a blister, saying “it’s a bad blister, but a bit of Disability Living Allowance should make it better”.

Complainants considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) by inaccurately suggesting that DLA could be claimed on the basis of such a trivial injury. They also considered that it had been misleading to imply that people in receipt of DLA do not have genuine need for the benefits they receive.

The complainants considered that the cartoon had been discriminatory towards the disabled, in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination). A number of complainants also said that they had found the article offensive.

The Commission considered the cartoon to have been a satirical commentary on the availability of disability benefits. Cartoons are a well-established method of newspapers making satirical comments about current affairs, and the Commission would be reluctant to compromise the ability of publications to pass commentary in this manner. Nonetheless, regardless of whether the cartoon’s message was satirical, the newspaper was required to observe the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice. Clause 1 (Accuracy) states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures” and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.

The Commission was satisfied that readers generally would have recognised that the cartoon expressed the robust, and even controversial, opinion of the newspaper about the general availability of disability benefits, rather than a statement of fact about the precise circumstances in which benefits can be claimed. While the cartoon had suggested that benefits are too readily available, it had not implied that everyone on DLA was receiving it unnecessarily. The newspaper had not failed to distinguish comment from fact. There was no breach of the Code.

Under Clause 12 the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s physical or mental illness or disability and details of an individual’s physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. The Commission made clear that Clause 12 does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The article had not made discriminatory reference towards an individual. In the absence of reference to a particular individual, the Commission did not establish a breach of Clause 12.

The Commission acknowledged that a number of complainants found the cartoon offensive; however, it made clear that the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised.  It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

I am not satisfied with this response. Does anyone know if there are further steps I can take?

#Derek: self-indulgence, saccharine and disability

Last night saw the first in Ricky Gervais's new series Derek. I posted about the pilot when it was screened last April, and I've never made any secret of the fact that I wasn't a fan. It seemed unfair for me to dismiss the series without seeing it, though, so I watched last night. The result was many, many thoughts - and here are some of them.

It's in Gervais's customary fly-on-the-wall mockumentary style. 50 year old Derek is a volunteer helper in a care home. His best friends are manager Hannah, odd job man Dougie, and a homeless man, Kev. I couldn't quite work out the purpose of Kev. He is unpleasant, smelly, alcoholic, and sexist, and really just hangs round on the periphery. Perhaps he's meant to be the antithesis of Derek's goodness and innocence?

The first episode had perhaps the most predictable plot possible for a show set in a care home. It was threatened with closure and the characters rallied round to save it. Additionally, of course, this is a timely story, with the current social care cuts.

Channel 4 billed  Derek as as a "bittersweet comedy drama", but to me there was neither enough tension for drama nor enough laughs for a sitcom. I was annoyed by the attempts to signal what emotion we should be feeling:  the sub-Einaudi piano music to show that this was a poignant or sad moment was a prime example. At times I was in danger of dying from a saccharine overdose, such as when Hannah explained the importance of caring.

It has to be said that many people loved the programme. The tweets below are just a couple of many examples.

#Derek was an emotional rollercoaster, had me crying & laughing in 30mins. Funny, sad but true and very insightful. (Emma J Fonzarell)

Just caught up with #Derek! Absolutely Fantastic, more comedy brilliance from @rickygervais :) (Lisa Marwick)

But others took issue with the accuracy of the setting:

@rickygervais Have you ever set foot in a care home? I know you think it's hilarious to be misinformed but come on, #Derek is lazy writing. (Bitsy)

One issue that keeps coming up is whether the character Derek is disabled. Ricky Gervais continues to insist that he's not, that he's simply naive and innocent, whereas many viewers are in little doubt that Derek has some kind of learning disability. Actor and comedian Peter Serafinowicz questioned:

Why has David Brent got Down's Syndrome? #derek (Peter Serafinowicz)

In  possibly a direct response to criticisms of the pilot, this was raised in the programme, with "man from the council" Roger asking Derek whether he'd ever been tested for autism.

'If I'm autistic would it change me? Would it kill me? Would it make me a different person?' 'No.' 'Then leave it.'

Now that's all fine for Ricky Gervais, but in real life, a diagnosis can be hugely comforting to the parents of a child with autism. A rather glib and uninformed attempt at manipulating the emotions of the viewers.

Derek has been around since the late 1990s. Back in 2001, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant discussed the character. 

"Derek," Ricky begins, "is just a nice, simple lad who sees the world differently." "Yeah," says Steve. "That's the corporate party line. Toeing the party line. The man who sees the world differently. Brilliant."

Hm.

In the end though, does it matter if Derek is disabled or not? A lot of comedy is about people doing stupid things. The problem comes when it goes beyond "mainstream" stupidity. Are we laughing at the characters or with them? In sitcoms like I'm With Stupid disabled characters are played by disabled actors, and the disabled man who originated the idea was story consultant for the series. A character with a disability being played by a non-disabled actor - particularly in a comedy - can raise questions about how accurate and sensitive their portrayal is.

And what effect will the portrayal have on public attitudes to disabled people? Comedian Stewart Lee, writing about the original YouTube videos of the character, said:

"...watching Gervais's Derek Noakes on YouTube, I imagined feral children trailing real Dereks around supermarkets, chanting "Derek Derek", as they doubtless would were the series to be made, and wondered if, sometimes, discretion is not the better part of valour." 

The evidence was on Twitter:

 @JonnyLobster @jmonkey_12 try an guess who i sm ya fucking beaut!! Bet ya dnt know cause ya #Derek (Bernie Wog)

.@rickygervais hey man! Saw #Derek ! So glad someone is finally making a sitcom where we can laugh at retards! Classic Mate! (Alex)

And as I recounted in my previous post about Derek, I have had a group of kids shouting "Oi, Derek!" at me in the street.

I suspect what Gervais was aiming for was a version of Forrest Gump, where innocence and goodness triumph in a confusing and wicked world. Did he succeed? Not for me. It was too maudlin. Ricky Gervais can be very funny, but he needs someone - Stephen Merchant does it par excellence - to keep him from tipping over the edge into self-indulgence.

Perhaps if there's another series of Derek, the title character should be played by a disabled actor. I'd take more interest in that.

Children in Need and Inspiration Porn

Tonight is the annual Children in Need telethon. Usually staid newsreaders will dance in their pants, the casts of soap operas will stage production numbers, and pop groups will try to revive flagging careers - all to encourage the Great British Public to phone in with donations to help disadvantaged children in the UK. Members of the public will already have completed various sponsored challenges: shaving their heads, lying in baths of baked beans, and so on.

So...great, right? Charities get money. Celebs get to tit around doing fun things and feeling the glow of philanthropy Members of the public get to laugh at said celebs and also sometimes take part in events. Win-win-win!.

Or is it? What about the recipients of this largesse?

If a child is living in poverty, that's something the government should be fixing. I pay my taxes for that. (Yes, yes, I know, we currently have the ConDems, but I'm talking should.) It shouldn't be down to charity to sort out the problems of inequality in our society.

Then there's the whole pity thing. If you can bear to watch, you'll see a lot of kids in wheelchairs gazing out of windows, a tear in their eye. The message seems to be that if you're disabled, you're an object of pity, and can't possibly be happy. Well, dammit. I may be disabled, but anyone who tries pitying me will get their arm ripped off and beaten to death with the soggy end. And pity promotes charity, rather than inclusion in society. While I have my moments, like everyone else, I'm generally pretty happy. Disability doesn't preclude happiness, any more than any other human state does.

There's a thing that's been called "Inspiration Porn". It involves removing a disabled person's individuality and humanity, presenting a snapshot of them to get (generally non-disabled) people to gee their ideas up. The disabled person can be doing the most everyday thing: I've been called "brave" for doing my shopping (was there a killer shark in the vegetable aisle?), but the "I" word will still be used.

Programmes like Children in Need are full of inspiration porn. The other day I watched the Children in Need special of a DIY show. They were renovating a day centre for children with special needs. At one point, I clicked on the Twitter hashtag for the programme, #DIYSOS.

Apart from one charmer who thought disabled kids got treated far too well, many tweets were fully inspiration porned up. For instance:

...puts all our little daily gripes into perspective when you see what these kids have to go through #DIYSOS

#DIYSOS amazing achievement, bless them kids & their families. Don't realise how lucky we are. 

Children, yes even disabled children, are more than fodder for inspirational snapshots of their lives. They are real, complex, sometimes happy and sometimes sad, sometimes angry with their situation and sometimes not bothered, and Always. Just. Kids.

Let's treat them as that, yeah? Rather than as pathetic objects, needing pity and charity. Not good for the self-esteem.

Strictly Come Dancing 2012 Launch Show

This season Strictly Comes Dancing turns 10. That’s a fair old age for a reality show. In the competitive early Saturday evening slot, can it maintain its viewing figures without constantly reinventing itself and alienating its core audience?

With Moira Ross as its executive producer since 2010, the show became increasingly reliant on props, gimmicks and shock tactics, from sequin-covered wellies for a Countryfile presenter to aggressively heterosexual competitors snogging very camp judges as part of the choreography. It was hard to recognise the dance being performed. The audience share grew considerably, but many diehard fans became disenchanted. The name Strictly Come Dancing appeared less and less appropriate.

Ross moved on at the end of the 2011 competition, to take charge of the BBC’s massive flop The Voice. So what of this year? Will things be any different under new co-executive producers Andrea Hamilton and Glenn Coomber?

Clearly, the show needs a good mix of celebrity contestants. But it’s disappointing to see that all the usual suspects are there yet again: The Ex-Eastender (Sid Owen); The ITV Daytime Presenter (Richard Arnold); The Older Man (Johnny Ball – and be prepared for endless jokes both about his age and about him being the father of Zoe Ball, host of It Takes Two); The Boy Band and Girl Band Members (Nicky Byrne and Kimberley Walsh); The Retired Sportsman (Michael Vaughan); The Fat One (Lisa Riley); The Ringer (Denise van Outen); The Game Old Girls (Jerry Hall and Fern Britton); The Actor You Recognise When You See Him (Colin Salmon); and The Children’s TV Star (Dani Harmer).

The only novelties are two medal-winning 2012 Olympians (Victoria Pendleton and Louis Smith). It’s a shame no Paralympians were included in the cast, but this was probably both impractical given the training timescale, and a mercy given some of the less sensitive jokes and comments they and we might otherwise have been subjected to.

The purpose of Saturday night’s 65-minute launch show was for the celebrities to be introduced to their professional dancing partners. This is a slim enough premise, so it was padded out with group dances, training VTs, and a performance by Mika.

The partnership reveals were fairly unspectacular, and in the main uncontroversial. The only one that seemed a little...odd...was the pairing of actor Colin Salmon with professional Kristina Rihanoff. There’s around a foot difference in their heights, so even when Rihanoff is wearing heels the differential will be substantial. It’ll be interesting to watch how she compensates.

There were some very good things in the show. New judge Darcey Bussell performed a beautiful rumba-based American Smooth with Ian Waite, which incidentally showed yet again why Waite should never have been dropped from the programme’s roster of professional dancers. A professional group cha-cha was good on the whole, although some of the lifts went a bit awry. As seems to be traditional in Latin dance, the men were either wearing wifebeater vests or had forgotten the purpose of their shirt buttons.

 But there were also some bad things. Some very, very bad things.

For instance, one thing that had not changed from last season was Bruce Forsyth’s level of presentational skills. It’s really not very professional to have to read the name of the programme’s new judge from a cue card, on camera. Moreover, actor Dani Harmer, wearing one of the show’s typically skimpy costumes, looked thoroughly uncomfortable when he put his hand on her back and asked if it was cold. And I’m not sure the situation was much improved when he moved his hand to the top of her head, as if leaning there (she’s not a tall woman).

Speaking of costumes, the Wardrobe department continue to struggle with dressing anyone over a size 12. They’d put Fern Britton in what can only be described as a pink sack with fringes, while Lisa Riley had been adorned with a stretchy blue wraparound curtain and a brooch. Neither flattered.

The programme finished with a group dance including both professional and celebrity dancers. It’s really too early to say definitely who shows promise, but Louis Smith, Dani Harmer and Colin Salmon all looked good. Nobody obviously had to be pushed into place, which is always a good sign! So much depends on the developing partnerships though, and what happens over the three weeks of training before the first full competitive week of the programme.

It would be wonderful if the new season of Strictly meant we’d be seeing more dancing and fewer pointless VTs, backstories, poorly delivered jokes, autocue and cue card fumbling, inappropriate behaviour, and so on. I’m not hopeful. But I’ll still be watching!

The Medical Ethics Association, the Telegraph, and the LCP

The Daily Telegraph recently carried an emotive, distressing story. Six doctors had written to the paper suggesting that the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a structured system of care ensuring that people in their final days or hours of life are in as little distress as possible, was being applied inappropriately to reduce strain on hospital resources.

The aim of the LCP is to unite members of the multi-professional team concerning continuing medical treatment, discontinuing treatment, and comfort measures in the last days and hours of life. All non-essential treatments and medications are stopped. Treatments may be started for symptoms such as pain, nausea, or breathing problems.

In some cases, for instance if pain can't be controlled, terminal sedation may be used. As patients receiving this type of deep sedation are typically in their last few hours of life, artificial hydration and nutrition are not given: the patient wouldn't be eating or drinking significant amounts anyway, and fluids may make distressing symptoms like respiratory secretions and pulmonary congestion worse. Palliative sedation therapy doesn't hasten death: it just makes it less uncomfortable.

There were several things in this article I...took issue with, shall we say. I'll list them below.

• It describes the LCP as a "controversial scheme". Quite the contrary: reviews have shown it to be effective and viewed positively by patients' relatives.One study found it reduced the extent to which doctors used medications which could shorten the patient's life. It is national policy in the UK, and now being introduced in other parts of the world.
• Predictably, the article makes an issue of the withdrawal of artificial hydration and feeding. As I said above though, someone in their last few hours of life wouldn't be eating or drinking anyway, and hydration could actually make symptoms worse.
• The six doctors concerned are "experts in elderly care". That doesn't make them experts in palliative care, a quite separate speciality.
• The doctors claim there is no “scientific way of diagnosing imminent death.” Well no. Not to the second. But doctors and (particularly) nurses generally have a pretty good idea of who's on the way out. If a patient's condition improves, they're taken off the Pathway and start the appropriate treatments again.
• The six doctors wrote their letter in conjunction with the Medical Ethics Alliance, a Christian organisation founded to promote pro-life policies. I don't know if they're all members, but presumably they're sympathetic to its views. The MEA believes that terminal sedation and the withholding of artificial hydration and nutrition is euthanasia. I think I've shown above why this is not the case.

If, as the doctors suggest, informed consent is not always being sought for going onto the LCP, then that's wrong and needs to be sorted out. But it's no excuse for scaremongering like this from the Medical Ethics Alliance and the Daily Telegraph. The LCP is good, compassionate, and evidence-based. It'll be a damn shame if people are too frightened to use it.

The MS Trust hits the airwaves!

The excellent MS Trust has been selected to give a Radio 4 appeal this Sunday. As well as bringing in much-needed donations, the appeal will raise awareness of the charity, letting people with MS, their friends and family know about the support available to them. Money raised will be going to help fund the Information Service, which is available free to anyone with a question about MS.

The appeal will be broadcast on Sunday at 07.55 and 21.26, and again the following Thursday at 15.27. Full details are here.

Please share this information, so that the appeal gets a really good audience! Please also listen, and consider donating if you're able to.

And if that doesn't grab your imagination, have a virtual stroll round the Secret Art Show: small pieces of art, some by international artists, all sold anonymously at the same price. You only  discover who yout piece is by when you receive it.

It's all as exciting as Mr Exciting, the Mayor of Exciting Town!

Gleeless #badd2011

This post is part of Blogging Against Disablism Day 2011, being run by Goldfish over at Diary of a Goldfish. Check it out for many superb posts on the general topic of disability and disablism

I confessed in a previous post to being a hardened and unashamed Gleek - addicted to the TV show Glee. I love its mixture of music, corny humour, and a huge dollop of cheese on top. One thing that's concerned me, though, is the programme's portrayal of disability.

Three stereotypes of disability are often used to typify people with impairments in mainstream media:

• The disabled person who wants to be "normal"
• The disabled person as pitiful, innocent and good
• The disabled person as evil

There are three obviously disabled characters in Glee. I'll consider them separately, as I believe that each represents a different one of these stereotypes.

Artie Abrams, played by the able-bodied Kevin Hale, uses a wheelchair following a car accident when he was 8. He dreams of some day walking again: at one point he tries (and fails) to stand using crutches, and his girlfriend at the time, Tina, researches spinal cord injury treatments for him. In the current season he tries out for the school football team. In a daydream, he dances upright again.

Artie typifies the "disabled person longing to be normal".

The other two obviously disabled characters in the show both appear to have Down's Syndrome.

The first is Jean Sylvester, sister of the evil cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester. She is played by Robin Trocki, and appears in the show only occasionally. Although Sue is the "baddie" in the programme, she does occasionally show acts of kindness, often flagged up none too subtly with a visit to Jean in her Assisted Living home immediately before or afterwards. Jean's unquestioning love for Sue seems to act as her conscience, to make her act in a way that is otherwise out of character for her.

Jean typifies the "disabled person as pitiful, innocent and good"

The last of the obviously disabled characters, also linked with Sue Sylvester, is Becky Jackson, played by Lauren Potter. Sue accepts Becky into the cheerleading squad, the strong implication being that this is because Sue's sister also has Down's Syndrome. However she rapidly becomes Sue's understudy and "mini-me", helping her in her devious plots, sitting in judgement in cheerleader auditions, and so on.

Becky typifies the "disabled person as evil"

Really, the only one we're missing is "disabled person as brave" and we'd have the complete set. Actually, thinking about it, in season 1 an episode called Laryngitis featured Sean, an American football player who'd become paralysed from the upper chest down in a game. And yes, he'd learned to deal with it, a person is not just one thing, the whole nine yards. So we have our complete set.

Probably the most controversy has been caused by Kevin McHale's portrayal of Artie: why is an able-bodied person playing the role of a wheelchair user? Studio bosses claim that they auditioned both able-bodied and disabled actors, but it was difficult to find anyone who could really act, really sing, and had the level of charisma required. But y'know...why were they auditioning able-bodied actors for the part of a disabled kid in the first place?

Glee still hasn't worked out how to show disability properly. Really good depictions of disability involve characters who just happen to be disabled, not characters whose every storyline centres around their disability. Let's hope they finally take some advice from the many disability organisations who are trying to show them the way.

Unreality TV - Medicine in Medical Dramas

Immediately before I took poorly and had to give up work, I was teaching first aid and basic life support - CPR and the like. I spent what seemed like the best years of my life trying to stop people doing chest compressions with their elbows bent and the arms doing the work - they should be done with elbows straight, and the body rocking from the hips to provide the pressure.

The reason for the problem? That's how they'd seen it done in medical dramas on the telly. And my street cred clearly wasn't high, compared to Charlie Fairhead's...

There are loads and loads of medical dramas on television. And some more loads. Trying to think and write about them all, and how accurately they depict medicine to the general public, would give scope for a PhD thesis (funding, anyone??) so I'm just going to talk about the ones I watch regularly - Casualty, Holby City and House.

The most overtly "heavy medicine" comes in House. Every week, there's an obscure illness, diagnosed through analysing symptoms, through blood tests, biopsies and scans - and of course through the genius of the eponymous Dr House.

It's a bit unrealistic, compared to the life of a real hospital doctor, though. Most of the time, House and his "team" of four or five more junior doctors seem to have only one patient. Very occasionally, House will see out-patients in clinic - but this is depicted more as a punishment for one of his frequent misdemeanours than anything else.

House's team also seem to be the ultimate multi-skilled staff. As "diagnosticians", they do everything from radiological procedures to neurosurgery. Again, very unlike real life, where different people are highly skilled in these different areas.

Casualty and Holby City are linked programmes, both taking place in Holby General Hospital. Medicine is far less central to the plotlines than in House, though still important. Casualty includes a lot of location filming, with plots leading up to fairly predictable accidents or illnesses. The end of each series inevitably features a major incident such as an explosion, a major car crash, or, in one series, a gun siege in the department. Holby City is set in two of the wards of the same hospital.

In each programme, the staff of the department discuss their personal lives in the most lurid detail as they work - often literally over their patient's abdomen. I don't believe this to be professional conduct: it's certainly not something I've ever experienced, though of course I don't know what's gone on when I've been unconscious!

Then there's the CPR - as I mentioned at the beginning of this post. As you'll see in the photo above, when you're doing CPR for real, your arms are straight (though I'd like to see her more directly above the patient. She's going to break ribs doing it from there. However...)

Thing is, in some of the medical dramas, they do it with their elbows bent. The reason is that they're doing it on real people, actors, and they don't want to put any pressure on their hearts - it can be dangerous, unless they really need chest compressions. The bendy-elbows thing is to look impressive for the cameras without actually putting any pressure on the heart.

So, medicine in medical dramas. The depiction is better than it used to be, certainly - but it's still not a true depiction of medicine. Do we want it to be? I'm not sure we do. An hour's programme of a doctor filling in paperwork might not be the most riveting programme ever....