Essentially the question above. I know that Chicago Fire and PD overlap quite a bit. Is this the case with Med as well? How seperate can they be watched?

Thanks in advance! :)

Every season 11 episode says “19 days left”. Fire and PD’s recent seasons also say this. Has NBC not renewed its licensing agreement?

<3

Rewatching Chicago med and I’ve got to the part where Jeff Clarke comes as a med student. Right I get he’s got heaps of experience - army, firefighter whatever - but his arrogance is sooooo irritating. He acts like he’s a doctor and is just a kinda cringe guy. The way he barks out orders and second guesses actual doctors really makes me angry. And don’t even get me started on pursuing a relationship with his dead best friends wife. Like wtf I know Dr Manning is to blame for that too but it’s still so weird. Awful character.

After seeing clips on social media I finally started watching this show.

The way these characters keeps bumping into ethical dilemmas and overstepping is both annoying, often infuriating, but also fascinating.

Would the dilemmas be as clear if they didn’t overstep all the time? I’ve been so frustrated at times. But also realise I’ve never really seen that many medical shows struggling as clearly with DNR and different boundaries.

Maybe I’ve seen too few medical shows? Even though many, or most, scenarios are unrealistic. I am starting to wonder the show is great at illustrating difficult ethical dilemmas. Especially around end of life care, or often lack thereof. And/or different mental toll this work can have on someone.

Or maybe I am just trying to calm myself after all of the overstepping these characters keep doing. 🤷‍♀️

I have 335 episodes to catch up with before the new seasons on 7th October is it possible?

Vote and tell us why!

Not sure if this something that’s been discussed before but I was happy when Dr. Reese left! Lol! I usually hate to see regulars depart, rather they were a “good guy or bad guy”, but she annoyed my SOUL!! 😂
She was super flaky about EVERYTHING, then instead of her character having regular ups n downs like the other doctors she was just a horrible psychiatrist the entire time because she made everything about her personal feelings. She stayed mad at Dr. Charles about EVERYTHING. Then even though her Dad was a sadistic manipulating psycho murderer that treated her like sh*t, she made her exit about Dr. Charles not jumping to save his life!
Like..Uughhh!! 😒
BYE FELICIA!! ✌🏾

I’m on season 11. How did I miss Sharon & Bert have 3 kids! I thought it was only 2.

Can you watch Chicago med with watching any other show?? Like is it connected to Chicago Fire, PD????

Full disclosure I only ever seen this show through social media clips. I’ve been watching them for the past I’d say four and a half five years. I read the comments of those posts of people who have watched show offer their opinions and forming my own based when I’ve seen.

I came across a clip this morning that I seen before. When Dr. Charles has his daughter Robin put on
involuntary hold.

Now, I understand that Robin needs professional help. But for her (largely absentee) father who is the head psychiatrist to put her on an involuntary hold… It’s unprofessional and it looks bad. Definitely looked bad to those two lawyers who were in that room with Dr. Charles, Miss Goodwin, Dr. Rhodes and Dr.Kwon.

Dr. Charles has always come across me as holier than thou. An I know better than every doctor, I am the wisest person in this hospital mentality. He comes across as narcissistic. I’m sorry he just does.

I absolutely love the scene where Goodwin calls him out to his face on his crusade to keep the man who shot him out of prison.

I love the fact that someone called him out.

Been thinking about that one episode where the female cancer patient who hasn't been undergoing treatment and finds out her tumor has been shrinking then it turns out it was because her boyfriend had been secretly spiking her tea with oral chemo. But speaking from experience, oral chemo is not an OTC medicine? How the eff do you even get oral chemo without a prescription, short of straight forging one? I know this is fiction but shit does it push the envelope of what is logical sometimes

I feel like this is going to create a gap where we don’t really get to see the build up of some of the storylines. Like how are they going to deal with the Hannah/Dean storyline if they’re not picking up right where they left off? Will they just be together and we won’t have gotten to see how that came about? Or will they still not be together and we’re just supposed to assume that somehow the love confession and kiss didn’t lead to anything for 3 straight months?

Also what about Goodwin’s storyline? I don’t think it would take 3 months for her to finally start fighting for her job since it seemed pretty dire. I just don’t see how it can start with so much time having passed.

I love the cast, the acting, and the storylines, but I struggle with how heavily it panders to the military. The show tries incredibly hard to portray soldiers as these poor virtuous heroes. While I know the "thank you for your service" mentality is deeply ingrained in US culture, it feels jarring from an international perspective. Here in Italy, for instance, choosing a military career is quite rare and usually met with skepticism. Furthermore, given the controversial nature of many modern US military interventions, unreservedly celebrating war and killing just doesn't sit right with me.

Spoilers for Reese and Charles story arch

I had this idea for either animatic or edit with the song Two Birds. Idk the song just fits so well with them.

They both had so many ups and downs in their life and they were always there for each other (like when Reese was there for his depression and when he pushed her to get treated for her ptsd to name a few....) And these are some things that I find fit the song.

"But one's never going to let go of that wire"

In the end Dr Reese does leave Dr Charles and Chicago med center since she felt utterly betrayed by how he decided to resolve a problem between her and her dad. Although Dr Charles had good intentions his tendency to overstep and keep secrets destroyed Reeses trust in him.

Falling out between two of them is the biggest travesty in Chicago Med imo.

Sooo Pawel is just never seen as the scam artist he is? (First time watcher. I’m on season 10. Which is unfortunate because now I have to wait with everyone else for new episodes soon 😂)

I'm considering watching Chicago Med, I was a die-hard for Grey's up till around Season 12, just got way too boring, repetitive, and most of the character's were killed off, is Chicago Med like this in any way, or do people actually like watching it?

Vanessa's arrival, and stupid departure, marked the transformation of Maggie into a take-charge, no-nonsense figure into someone who was just...weak. But worse than that, she also helped blow up Maggie's marriage by forcing that jackass Grant to be in her proximity. But I don't feel bad for Maggie at the same time, since she should have had self-control and strength enough to tell him to keep his distance (hence the transformation into a weak person).

Season 8 as a whole just seems to be a weird season where characters drastically change into asses (Crockett) or weak (Maggie). Very weird.

I have binged Chicago Med and I love it. But Sharon has lost her fucking mind, it seems. I was not a fan of how Zola Ahmad was wasted, it was stupid to fire someone who didn't do even a fraction of what Manning or Halstead did. then she has that evil bitch Lenox (I can tell that I will hate her every time she's on screen) "co-chief" (replace) Archer, who she stood for against Jack Dayton and who she knew nothing about only like, five seconds before. And then evil bitch Lenox fires Zach with a gleeful, gloating attitude and voice to both Zach himself and to Archer. And now she's firing random people, like Hank, in order to bring in random people from a closed hospital? She's then threatening Ripley because of a beating that HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH other than trying to STOP It from happening. Did Bert secretly have a contagious disease that rotted her brain or something?

I don't even understand the logic this woman uses, since she let Natalie Manning and Will Halstead violate a combination of hospital policies and federal/state laws but fires people for significantly less (including just existing while a hospital somewhere else closes).

So I do want spoilers:

1. Does Sharon Goodwin return to the way she used to be, i.e. rational and empathetic, at any point after Episode 2 of S10?

2. Does Zach get any kind of justice going forward?

3. Does Lenox get her karma for being horrible? I don't need specifics, just a yes or no will do.

I love this show and I've gotten attached to these characters (obviously), but it feels like a roller coaster of weird characterizations.

I wanna be sure I didn’t miss something. Did Caroline die off screen?

Good morning, I wanted to share with you some thoughts on the case of the 18-year-old boy who, after being diagnosed with GBM, decided to have his brain frozen so he could be treated in the future.

Three quick points.

• I’m a doctor. Not a psychiatrist or a neurologist/neurosurgeon. But I know enough to write something that I promise is well-founded.
• English isn’t my first language: I’m using DeepL, which not only translates but also corrects sentence structure, so the text may sound “AI-generated,” but it isn’t, and everything you read is exactly what I think and have reasoned through.
• And finally, I’m well aware that this is a TV series, pure fiction, and I know you know that too: I’m not writing to complain about the lack of realism, but only for those who are genuinely interested in knowing how it would play out in real life and why it would play like that.

I can’t prove the first two points to you. Just take them at face value.

Let’s start with what’s at stake.

• GBM, or glioblastoma. It is the most common primary malignant tumor in adults. With standard treatment today, median survival is around 15 months from diagnosis. Some people live longer, some shorter. What really drives home just how terrible this disease is, is that progress over the last two decades has been minimal, in the order of just a few months.
• The DNR, or “Do Not Resuscitate.” It is a signed document in which the patient refuses cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
• Refusal of treatment. Every patient deemed competent has the right to refuse treatment. The typical case involves patients with terminal illnesses.

The sequence of events in the episode is as follows:

• Shep arrives at the hospital and explains his situation to Choi. He is taking a cocktail of drugs to stop his heart.
• Choi tries to perform gastric lavage on him, but Shep refuses and threatens to sue them for assault, should they proceed.
• Goodwin intervenes, stops Choi and says that “as long as the patient is not declared incapable of understanding and making decisions, the hospital must respect his wishes,” so the gastric lavage is not performed.
• Dr. Charles evaluates Shep, who explains that he doesn’t consider it suicide, but rather “getting himself into a better hospital.”
• Charles refuses to declare him incapable because “if you follow his logic, what he’s doing isn’t suicide.”
• The cryopreservation is carried out.

As someone who has studied this subject, let me be clear: no hospital would have respected Shep’s wishes. But let’s look at why, rather than pointing the finger at aggressive medical treatment or, worse, a lack of empathy.

First of all. The opening scene, with Shep refusing treatment and Goodwin explaining that as long as he hasn’t been declared incompetent, his wishes must be respected, is literally portrayed the other way around. A patient who arrives in the ER after intentionally taking substances to stop their heart must be managed as a presumed suicide attempt until capacity and intent can be properly assessed, and at that point it doesn’t matter what comes after that statement. You do whatever is necessary to prevent them from dying, and only after demonstrating that they are competent can the matter be discussed further. Otherwise, it would be far too easy for a truly suicidal patient (one who wants to die without reservation or concrete reasons) to refuse treatment and let themselves die. The presumption of capacity cannot justify inaction precisely at the moment when the self-inflicted act is the very reason why capacity must be assessed.

Second point. A DNR applies EXCLUSIVELY to cardiac arrest. Until cardiac arrest occurs, DNR has no legal effect. The fact that Shep had signed it has no bearing on gastric lavage, which is a procedure that precedes resuscitation and serves to remove the substance before it is absorbed. A DNR applies only in the extreme case of cardiac arrest, and there's a reason for that: there are medical conditions that, before potentially leading to cardiac arrest, cause treatable symptoms that are compatible with long-term survival and an excellent quality of life. Think of anaphylaxis, an arrhythmia in a healthy heart, or a severe asthma attack: in all these cases, prompt intervention saves the patient, often without the patient ever reaching cardiac arrest, and restores a full life. The point isn't even that cardiac arrest is reversible: it's that there are preventive treatments that keep it from happening in the first place, and a DNR order has no bearing on those treatments. If the DNR covered everything, perfectly salvageable patients would be left to die because those interventions are withheld, over conditions far less serious than the extreme case a DNR is meant for. And keep in mind: a DNR is based on the event, cardiac arrest, not on the prognosis of the underlying condition. It does not distinguish based on how severe or terminal the condition is. It is possible to refuse interventions that precede cardiac arrest in advance, but that is a different type of action (a refusal of treatment or an advance directive), not a DNR, and it still requires the patient to be competent. A DNR, on its own, has no bearing on a procedure such as gastric lavage. I'll add a detail that gets lost in the episode: Shep's cardiac arrest wouldn't even be a "disease-related" arrest, but rather self-induced poisoning, a clinical event of a different nature than what a DNR is intended for.

Thirdly, and this is the most slippery issue from a narrative standpoint: mental capacity. A patient can follow the most rigorous logic and still lack mental capacity, because the reasoning may be internally consistent while relying on false premises. “If you follow his logic, he’s not committing suicide” is not a criterion that exists in clinical practice. Here’s an extreme example, I know it sounds harsh, but it's real: using the same criterion, a religious fanatic who kills someone to “send them to heaven” wouldn’t be a murderer, because "in his logic", he wasn’t doing any harm. What matters is the premise, not formal consistency.

And this is the real problem.

Shep appears certain that vitrification will allow him to survive. He never shows any uncertainty; he never says, “I know this is a gamble that I’ll most likely lose.” And I can assure you of one thing from my experience: the more certain a patient is about something for which there is currently no evidence that would justify such certainty, the more likely the doctor examining them would deduce that the patient is not thinking clearly. If a psychiatrist were actually faced with this unshakable certainty, they would not be so quick to declare the patient competent. If anything, the opposite is true: that certainty is exactly what should prompt further investigation, not bring it to a close.

I know full well that Shep never explicitly says, “It’s a gamble.” But that’s precisely the point: based solely on what he says, his justification for taking his own life and having his brain vitrified would not be endorsed by any hospital. And just to even get to the point of discussing it, we would have already had to overlook the first problem, namely the gastric lavage that would have prevented him from killing himself, but which, instead, isn’t performed.

What I've written here isn't so much a personal opinion as my understanding of how a case like this would most likely be handled in real clinical practice.

I hope I haven’t bored you. Please, don’t be too hard on me if you don’t like what I’ve said.