Plot: Col. Lacy's callous disregard for his men is causing casualties to mount up. Hawkeye slips him something to cause intestinal pain and then removes his appendix, under B.J.'s protests.

Almost forgot Plot B!: Klinger turns to voodoo for his new scheme at getting out of the army.

This is an interesting episode with the debate that arises over the morality of removing the appendix, especially when compared to the early episode in which Hawkeye and Trapper did basically the same thing very casually. It nicely highlights the differences between Trapper and BJ: Trapper being Hawk's sidekick and BJ being his own person.

I've heard in various places that the original script called for the appendix to be taken out by both doctors, much as it was in the early episode, but Mike Farrell protested that BJ wouldn't participate in something like that. As a result, we get a much more intriguing plot.

I had a long debate with some people a couple months ago about whether Hawkeye or BJ was right. It began with me convinced BJ was in the right, and in one of the few times I've ever switched sides in the middle of an argument, I ended up with the conclusion that, while Hawkeye was violating his Hippocratic Oath, potentially saving even one kid's life was much more valuable.

For me, this episode is a high point for M*A*S*H. It's a rare thing for TV to make me seriously think and even re-evaluate my views on an issue as this episode did. I also appreciate that it ends semi-ambiguously, showing that there are no easy answers to these types of questions.

I think that Hawkeye had a good point when he said that there were doctors performing unnecessary surgery for money. They've also been known to do it for other reasons. I read that, early on in the twentieth century, certain doctors got the appalling notion that people "didn't need" most of their large intestine--that it simply "dirtied up" their system. (If they didn't need it, why on Earth was it put there in the first place?) Hundreds of patients submitted to having most of their large intestine removed. It did not "purify" their systems. All it did was condemn them to a lifetime of intestinal problems. Compared to that, taking out an appendix is small potatoes. Perfectly healthy people going mountain climbing or on treks to the back of beyond have been known to have their appendixes removed as a precautionary measure. Col. Lacey need never fear suffering appendicitis, a burst appendix, or follow-up perotonitis ever again.

The closing scene has a great bit of dialogue, with Klinger urging Father Mulcahy to take his voodoo paraphernalia. Mulcahy reluctantly agrees--"Everything but the chicken." Klinger: "O.K. I'll give that back to the cook."

I saw this episode last night, and it did make me stop and think. My conclusion, though, is that Hawkeye did wrong. He violated his oath as a doctor and the rights of another human being. That he did it to prevent a possible wrong by Lacey changes nothing. Doing wrong to prevent wrong is never right.

Further, I firmly believe that in real life you are never required to prevent a wrong by doing wrong. There is always another option. I'm disappointed that the writer(s), wanting to force a moral debate, decided to discount this. It's obvious that B. J. and Hawkeye could've thought up a host of better ways to prevent Lacey's actions. The whole issue seems faked to me now.

I'm also disappointed that B. J. let Hawkeye perform the operation. If he really believed it was wrong he should've stopped it. I wonder if, when Col. Potter started asking questions, B. J. told the truth?

I have a dumb question, why dosen't Pierce just put him under for a few hours and tell the General the bogus operation was a success. (The beauty of this plan is that Pierce dosen't have to do any surgery.)

EXACTLY!!!

Ummm...was he going to draw a scar on with ink or something?

He could just say that some new procedure was done that dosen't use a scar.

And if another doctor checked him out?

What other doctor? Who would bother? Pierce and B. J. were clever enough to stop anyone from finding out, anyway.

Another option would've been to keep Lacey sedated or simply bedridden for a few days under some made-up pretext, such as B. J.'s 'explanation' of the stomach pains. Or they could've given him a Section 8 (I think he was crazy!). Or they could've told Col. Potter so he'd pull a few strings. There were so many other ways, and the supposedly intelligent Pierce couldn't think of any of them??

I don't know if they could have told Col. Potter. Sometimes he could be very picky about regulations. He may have done nothing, or insisted they go through official channels. Meanwhile, more men would have died.

I think Col. Potter would've done all he could to stop Lacey. I can't see him standing by while some nut dodged orders and killed soldiers unnecessarily.

I can't see him standing by while some nut dodged orders

You mean, like Hawkeye?

Well, Pierce is a nut, but as far as Sherman T. knows he only dodges orders to do the right thing. If Potter ever found out about this caper Pierce would be in HUGE trouble!

::Why dosen't Pierce just put him under for a few hours and tell the General the bogus operation was a success::

What happens later in life if the guy develops appendicitis? Doctors discount the possibility because he supposedly doesn't have one anymore. Not removing it would be awful, and could end up killing him in the long run.

Point number two: I totally disagree with the people out there who say that Hawkeye should not have done the surgery. Lacey was a jerk who risked appalling numbers of lives for his own glory and service record. That is unacceptable. I personally can't think of another way to stop him, and I think he had to be stopped at all cost. Yes, prinicples are all well and good when one is wearing the green felt doctoral cape and reciting the Hippocratic Oath. Prinicples lose their importance when lives depend on what you do. Maybe those soldiers lives don't seem like much in the face of violating principles or an oath, but I assure you, they mean an awful lot to the families of those dead boys. And frankly, when you compare countless lives to one essentially useless organ in one essentially useless man, there is no comparison.

Then, Hawkeye should have made up an operation. Say the general had a gonkuectomy. (removal of the gonkulator, which he didn't have in the first place. Therefor the surgery should be a complete sucess.)

"What happens later in life if the guy develops appendicitis?"

Then hopefully the doctors are smart enough to figure out that he does, indeed, still have his appendix.

"Lacey was a jerk who risked appalling numbers of lives for his own glory and service record. That is unacceptable."

I'm not disagreeing with you there.

"I personally can't think of another way to stop him, and I think he had to be stopped at all cost."

We've already suggested a number of other ways to stop him; if you really try, you can probably think of more. As I said before I don't believe in situations where doing wrong is the only way to prevent wrong from being done.

I disagree that he had to be stopped 'at all costs.' Are you saying that if the only way to stop him had been by killing him, that would've been OK?

"Prinicples lose their importance when lives depend on what you do."

I again disagree. Principles aren't something that can be disgarded, for any reason. Otherwise they're meaningless.

Well, Lurker, I hope to God that my life never depends on you. If it were your son or your husband, or your father whose life depended on whether or not Lacey had that operation done, I'd be willing to bet that principles take a backseat to that life. I can tell you that principles take a backseat to saving a life in my line of work. I know somebody who got a court order to defy the wishes of a parent in order to save their child's life. Right or wrong? Medicine is full of ambiguities. To my way of thinking, preserving a life and the quality thereof supercedes lofty principles and standing on a high horse. It may be easy for somebody to say that principles outweigh saving a life. It's not so easy when you see people die every day, and it's sure not as easy when it's the life of somebody you love. I find it appalling that people would put principle above a life, probably hundreds of lives.
As for the doctors being able to figure out that he still had an appendix, yes, in this day and age they would have scanned him, done an ultrasound, etc. However, when the man developed pain on his right side, in keeping with appendicitis, he himself would not have considered that a possibility, and might have delayed going to the hospital for too long. There're too many variables with something like that.
I'm not even going to touch the "gonkulator."

"Well, Lurker, I hope to God that my life never depends on you."

Why? When have I ever said that I would've let Lacey go on with his plan? I'm saying that what Pierce did to stop him was wrong, that there were other ways, and that I won't violate the basic rules of right and wrong which I believe in under any conditions.

"I can tell you that principles take a backseat to saving a life in my line of work."

Then the people in your line of work don't have principles, just rules which apply in some cases and not in others.

"I know somebody who got a court order to defy the wishes of a parent in order to save their child's life. Right or wrong?"

When a parent is endangering the life of a child, of COURSE it's right to save that child! The court obviously agreed. Parents don't have any right to kill their offspring.

As long as we're playing 'what if' - what if Pierce made a mistake while operating and didn't catch it? What if complications arose? What if Lacey got seriously ill? What if he died?

And if you don't like lying about taking out Lacey's appendix, we made other suggestions. Do you really think Pierce, B. J. and the others - especially considering all the wacky stuff they've gotten away with - couldn't have pulled something less objectionable off?

Honestly, no, I don't think they could have come up with something as effective in such a short period of time. As for people of my profession having no principles, I guess the main principle of nursing is only saving lives and protecting the quality of life. Gee, yes, we're unprincipled barbarians.
As for the court order to save the child's life, you have to look at all of the facets. The situation was this: The 4 year old child of a Jehova's Witness couple was in a car accident. He was bleeding to death, and needed a blood transfusion to save his life. However, the Jehova's Witness faith prohibits accepting a blood transfusion. So, the pediatric attending and I obtained a court order to transfuse the child. We then sent the recovered child home with parents who honestly believed that his soul was destined to hell. Right? Not really. Wrong? Not really. I couldn't watch a baby die and not do anything about it, yet instead I sent a baby home with people who believed that his soul was destined to hell. In many many medical situations, you just can't win. You either do a simple surgery to remove an organ with no known use, or you allow men to die needlessly. You either save a child's life, or violate the moral and religious principles of the child's parents. What do you do?

"Honestly, no, I don't think they could have come up with something as effective in such a short period of time."

I guess this is where we disagree, then. I think B. J.'s plan would've worked fine; I think a lot of plans would've worked fine. Pierce was just too full of hate, anger, stubbornness, and that annoyingly superior attitude to think of or about them.

"...I guess the main principle of nursing is only saving lives and protecting the quality of life. Gee, yes, we're unprincipled barbarians."

For gosh sakes, I did *not* say you were unprincipled barbarians! What I meant is that your definition of principles is obviously not the same as mine - what you call principles I call guidelines, which can be ignored in some cases. What I call principles are things like "Thou shalt not murder." We also have different ideas about how this world works. You think we sometimes have to choose between the lesser of two evils; I think there is never such a choice - there's always another option.

"You either do a simple surgery to remove an organ with no known use, or you allow men to die needlessly."

As I said above, that isn't the situation I see.

"You either save a child's life, or violate the moral and religious principles of the child's parents."

I figured this involved a religious objection. To be frank, I would respect the moral and religious principles of the child's parents only until they directly conflicted with *my* moral and religious principles. I'd have been nice and polite, but I'd have done what you did and considered it to be the right thing. I believe that you don't let a child die because its parents think blood in a person's body permanently changes the destination of that person's soul. I'd also ask Child Protective Services to check up on the kid every once in awhile, and do a lot of praying.

Because of some things I've seen in life, I do think that many times in life, one chooses the lesser of two evils. I believe that life is not always choosing the right answer, sometimes it's choosing the least wrong one.
As for the child we transfused, my personal belief is that I would walk through fire for my child, and would not place principles above the life of that child. However, that family had principles that prohibited them from allowing their child to accept blood, and I forced them to violate those principles. Am I sorry? No. I couldn't live with myself knowing that I let the kid die. So I guess my reason for bringing this instance up is that the parents stood by their principles and would have let their little boy die. So, which would be more important to you? Principles or the life of your child? If it was your brother, son, or father who was in Lacey's command, which would be more important to you? Principles or the life of the soldiers?

Oh, and people out there, Lurker especially, I am famous (infamous maybe) for my quick temper and comebacks, so please, don't be offended by my tenacity with this issue, because I don't mean to offend anybody here. Peace?

"Principles or the life of your child?"

Do you know the story of Abraham and Isaac? It's in Genesis 22. God demands the life of Abraham's son as a sacrifice - and Abraham obeys. He believes that God's will is paramount because God, after all, knows best (and wants the best for His children). This is what I believe as well. That's why my principles, which I believe are dictates from God, are more important to me than anything else. However, in Genesis God stops Abraham at the last moment. He (God) wouldn't require anyone's life unless it was absolutely necessary - that is also something I believe. He would never stake my child's life against breaking His laws; He loves my kid even more than I do! But He might ask that I give up my child so He can do something incredible. And, yes, I would obey Him.

Maybe what's bugging me is that doctors always set themselves up as being primarily concerned with the physical well-being of their patient. Doesn't matter if that patient is a saint or an axe murderer, a doctor will treat everyone to the full extent of his/her skill. I thought this is what doctors are required to do. I thought that's why we trust doctors, who are sometimes perfect strangers, with our lives daily. Then the fictional Dr. Pierce comes along and completely violates that rule without thought or pause (in what I think is a ridiculous situation), and you, a real nurse, stand up for him! Now I'm worried. If real doctors think they *can* put their personal beliefs and agendas first, then they've stopped being what I thought doctors were - impartial, professional, dedicated solely to their patients - and become biased, short-sighted, emotionally driven human beings like the rest of us, but with much more power.

Oh, and peace ;)

Doctors and nurses are people too. We use the bathroom along with everybody else. We have our own personal prejudices and dislikes. If somebody is rude to me when I work triage, they wait a lot longer than necessary to be admitted. If somebody is nice to me, I bend over backward for them. If people are rude to me, I do my job, nothing more. That's human nature. Real doctors and nurses are not impartial and professional 100% of the time. Doctors don't deserve the pedestal that society as a whole puts them on. I've seen people slow coded and show coded (when a resucuitation was needed, it was started slowly, or done halfheartedly), most always at the instigation of a doctor. That's healthcare. It cannot be perfect and impartial because the parts of healthcare are carried out by humans.
Doctors treat everybody who comes through the doors with all the skill they have to use, often not because they're altruistic and think everybody deserves equal care, but to avoid a malpractice suit. We trust doctors with our lives because we have no other choice.
I, a real nurse, stand up for him because I know what it's like to make a decision like that, and I know what it's like to be placed on a pedestal because of the uniform I wear and then have somebody be terribly disappointed in me because I don't deserve to be on that pedestal. Doctors are just people who've been to school for a long time.
As for the story of Abraham and Issac, I am familiar with the story.I also acknowledge that in modern society, we would either jail or instutionalize somebody who burned his son to death saying that God told him to. We would label him schitzophrenic or otherwise crazy and put him in the nut house. I think one problem with applying Bible stories to morden day life is that the stories in the Bible are not in keeping with modern standards.
Peace!

I realize that the state of healthcare today is far from ideal, but I don't think that makes its problems OK; I realize that doctors and nurses are human, but that doesn't excuse not *trying* to be deserving of that pedestal. The normality and pervasiveness of corruption shouldn't make it acceptable.

"I also acknowledge that in modern society, we would either jail or instutionalize somebody who burned his son to death saying that God told him to."

Certainly! That person would a murderer, and a dangerous one.

"I think one problem with applying Bible stories to morden day life is that the stories in the Bible are not in keeping with modern standards."

I'm not sure what you mean. Times are different, yes, so some things (like how to capture and raze cities) are now irrelevant. But the stories of how God works and relates to His people are still relevant to the believers of today.

Point one: I disagree that what Hawkeye did was "corruption." I think it was a man trying to make the best decision. Maybe your principles wouldn't allow you to put human lives over an unnecessary operation. Well, maybe his wouldn't allow for any more deaths.
Now, you said earlier "Parents don't have any right to kill their offspring." Even for principles? Abraham would have. You said above that you would have as well. "But He might ask that I give up my child so He can do something incredible. And, yes, I would obey Him." These statements seem to contradict each other.
Finally, I would not be breaking my principles by performing an unnecessary operation. I would be breaking them only if I allowed for more needless death. Maybe Hawkeye felt the same way.

"Maybe your principles wouldn't allow you to put human lives over an unnecessary operation."

That's NOT what I said. I believe that human life is a holy and precious thing, much more important than *any* operation. I simply said that Pierce had better options, refused to use them, and violated his trust as a surgeon. I DON'T believe this was a simple 'either do the operation or soldiers will die' situation! Understand??

"Now, you said earlier "Parents don't have any right to kill their offspring." Even for principles?"

No one has the right to murder another human being for any reason.

"Abraham would have."

Abraham was going completely on faith. God gave an order - you don't disobey God. Abraham knew that. Abraham also knew that God had ordered a violation of His own laws against human sacrifice, which seemed insane. But Abraham followed His order, utterly confident that God would pull a rabbit out of His sleeve, even as he was about to plunge in the knife. And he was right. THAT is faith. It's one of the most amazing stories in the Bible.

"These statements seem to contradict each other."

No, because I didn't say I would *murder* my child. That would be wrong and God wouldn't ask or allow it. I said I would give up my child if God asked - 'give up' meaning anything except going against God's laws.

I do not want to get into a religious debate, but if you will look up the passage about which you speak, verse 10 says that he "...took forth a knife to slay his son." Now, if you will look in a thesaurus, you will find that "slay" is a synonym for "murder." He did it because God told him to. As I've said, we would hold somebody legally accountable for that, and if they chose to "slay" their son and say God told them to, we would think they were crazy and treat them accordingly.
As for what actually started this whole debate, I don't think there was another way, and I don't think Pierce violated his trust as a doctor. But I guess that is where we disagree. So, as entertaining as this whole disagreement has been, I guess it just comes down to the fact that we have differing opinions. As stubborn as I am, I doubt I will change your mind, and I know you won't change mine. So, friends?

I think you're missing the point. God never intended to let Abraham murder Isaac. Abraham believed this so completely that he carried out God's order to the letter, risking his son's life if he was wrong. He wasn't wrong. God stopped him. If a man actually DID murder his son because he said God (the God I believe in) told him to, it would be a *completely* different situation. God never would've made him go through with it. The man would be a very dangerous liar (or delusional, whichever).

"...I guess it just comes down to the fact that we have differing opinions....So, friends?"

OK! But out of curiosity (and I promise I won't argue with ya'), do you feel the same way about how Pierce and Trapper got rid of Mr. Secret Agent Man?

Yes, I do. It seemed a lot less objectionable in that episode, and honestly, I realize that there would have been several different ways to retain the antibiotic than what they did, but it was still funny. Anyway, I honestly don't think it was such a horrible thing to do. I've seen worse things done. But I do think that there would have been many ways to keep the penicillin, and they would have been much easier than what they did. Oh well.

I agree that it was funny! =) I sat on the couch with my mouth hanging open at the sheer craziness of (almost) the whole episode, then decided not to take it very seriously.

It strikes me that one thing that people tend to forget is that Hawkeye would not have thought of an alternative method of dealing with Colonel Lacey. Why? Because he and Trapper had already successfully used the same method (removable of the appendix) on Colonel Flagg. Because it had worked once, I don't think Hawk would have considered any other alternative. "Nothing succeeds like success."

"Because it had worked once, I don't think Hawk would have considered any other alternative."

Just another thing for me to dislike about him ;)

Yes, and one more reason for me to think BJ was a candyassed twerp. Seriously, what a total whiner. "Mutillation." What a crock. As I said earlier in this discussion, I think BJ was a nerd and an overrated Jiminy Cricket--the conscience that never took a bloody vacation. Not to mention that he was WRONG! LOL...sorry! :)

What about the episode where BJ bombed Klinger's office? It was a part of a prank, but it was still wrong.

Not to mention all the pranks he pulled to humiliate his best friend, Hawkeye. (Okay. Some mebbe Pierce deserved a few.)

I like B. J. - most of the time. He does some stuff that's iffy in my book, but I admire that he usually listens to his conscience and stands up for his beliefs. BTW, I'm sure you'll not be surprised to hear that my favorite character is Father Johnny ;)

"I like B. J. - most of the time. He does some stuff that's iffy in my book, but I admire that he usually listens to his conscience and stands up for his beliefs." - Lurker

Uh, that bit about "listens to his conscience and stands up for his beliefs" also describes Hawkeye. You may disagree with his methodology, but Pierce does stand up for beliefs and follows his conscience.

Just before Colonel Lacey cries out in pain, we see Klinger outside the Swamp, talking to his Colonel Potter voodoo doll. In the background, a couple of soldiers walk by. I couldn't help but notice them laughing at Klinger. Nice touch.

Major Hoolihan starts out very attracted to Colonel Lacey. She then, after having lunch with him, changes her mind. Does this ring false to anyone else?

Major Hoolihan starts out very attracted to Colonel Lacey. She then, after having lunch with him, changes her mind. Does this ring false to anyone else?

No it doesn't ring false to me. Margaret is an officer who admittedly is attracted to fellow military officers. However, she is a nurse, first and foremost. Lacey's plans regarding the hill would have enraged most medical professionals, since it would have caused needless fatalities. For that matter, it would have enraged most normal thinking people in general.

Lacey was a sociopath who didn't give one flying fig about who under his command would die over a pointless military operation. The hill didn't have much strategic value to begin with. He only wanted to take it because he enjoyed fighting and killing too much, not to mention a successful taking of the hill it would probably look good on his service record. Such a callous disregard for human life would be enough to turn Margaret (or anyone) off.

How many times did they fight over Hill 403? IIRC, that was the same hill Jerry Nielson's unit fought for ("The Billfold Syndrome").

I'm not sure if this was scripted, but in the chowline, Charles refers to Igor first as a "Corporal". Winchester then corrects himself and calls Igor a private.

While talking to Margaret about taking Hill 403, in one shot, Colonel Lacey's hand is by his side, in the next shot he has his knife in his hand and over his tray. In the very next shot, the knife is missing from his hand.

Potter is dictating a letter to Radar about Colonel Lacey. Radar asks Potter if he really means what he's saying about Lacey. The Corporal says, "He seems really nice to me." His right hand is on his clipboard. In the next shot, the right hand is on his chest.

In one shot, McAvoy, the unconscious soldier Lacey speaks to, has his hands by his side. In the next shot his left hand is on his chest.

I don't know what it was that Hawkeye used to induce Colonel Lacey's "gastritis/appendicitis", but it's kind of scary that Pierce apparently has a supply of it in the Swamp.

I guess Father Mulcahy's been a good boy. He has a name tag indicating a hook for his clothes in the scrubroom again.

Should B.J. have been drinking before he knew he was going to operate? I mean, I know we only see him drinking one martini, but still...

I can't help but wonder what Hawkeye would have done had Colonel Lacey's appendix been removed several years ago? He was taking a risk that the Colonel still had one.

"All that good whiskey shot to hell."

I can't help but wonder what Hawkeye would have done had Colonel Lacey's appendix been removed several years ago? He was taking a risk that the Colonel still had one.

He did ask the Colonel if you ever had his appendix taken out. If he had said yes, Pierce could have agreed with Hunnicutt and said he had gastritis. At which point he'd probably think of another way to get Lacey out of command

You realize, of course, I'm now gonna have to go back and check that. Odds are, though, you're right, Corey.

"All that good whiskey shot to hell."

I don't know what it was that Hawkeye used to induce Colonel Lacey's "gastritis/appendicitis", but it's kind of scary that Pierce apparently has a supply of it in the Swamp.

Well, many medicines depend on the dosage to be helpful or harmful - Belladonna is used for the eyes, Atropin/Digitalis and Nitroglycerin for the heart, in diluted versions.

Also, if a medication is used for other than the intended purpose (internally instead of externally e.g.), stomach cramps can result.

Or it's a medication to cause throwing up in case of intoxication - and given the amount of alcohol in the swamp, I guess there's a good reason why Hawk keeps it there...