Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:People Will Talk

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It's on Netflix, if anyone wants to watch it.--Krejtalk 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Mission[edit]

What's the purpose of this article? "This film is about a doctor, but people watching it might think about CAM." What's the point of it? SophieWilder 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It'd really really really REALLY help if there were citations for anyone saying or suggesting that such a thought process occured somewhere. SophieWilder 18:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the only example I could find. Feel free to delete if you want.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, this, this (comments section), this, and this.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. - this film might make someone think he's an alternative therapist of some sort.
  2. - "he seems to be an effective physician who actually helps people, so it can’t be that he’s some kind of quack “healer” dealing in alternative medicine."
  3. - Some bloke in some comments section misremembered the character or got the name mixed up with somebody else.

Etc. This really is crap. SophieWilder 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the CAM connection is tenuous, but it has been interpreted as a commentary on the McCarthy witchhunts. Or maybe it's just nothing. Whatever.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
actually that stuff's quite interesting. SophieWilder 09:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Overlooked Ethical Violation[edit]

No one at Praetorius' hearing seems to care that he has broken the law, in a very serious manner: harboring a fugitive (Mr. Shunderson) who the Canadian authorities believe to be dead (he'd been sentenced to death for murder, but survived being hanged, waking up when Praetorius, a young medical student, was about to dissect his body afterward). This may not be a medical ethics violation per se, and Shunderson doesn't seem to be dangerous, but even so, it seems odd that his bete noire Erwell, who brought the charges, doesn't seize on this immediately, rather than merely sit meekly and say nothing while the board ignores the revelation, letting Praetorius go. For a message which is clearly referencing the McCarthyism of the day, it would do better not to have a persecuted figure who hadn't actually done something that should legitimately be investigated. Mcc1789 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out at this stage that we are dealing with a work of fiction. SophieWilder 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course, but he was charged with ethical violations, and clears himself by admitting to more serious ones? That seems to be a rather large plot hole. Mcc1789 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)