"Falling:" New Season 19 episode

[annabelleleigh]

This story is a shocker. What starts as a slip-and-fall at an unsafe construction site tumbles into the plot of a modern-day Mary Shelley story.

I don't know what I could preview that wouldn't ruin it for would-be viewers, so I'll just say that this episode opens with a Donald Trump-like character. It's the script's only possible comic relief.

"Falling" also reminds me that three of the mothership's current writers have dabbled in science fiction.

AL

[DonnaJo]

Is there a supernatural creature?

[annabelleleigh]

No. It's more like a 21st century call for Dr. Frankenstein.

AL

[dragonsback]

Sounds as if body parts may feature prominently

[annabelleleigh]

On a tip I found the real-life circumstances on which "Falling" is based.

I confess: I missed this story entirely when it came to press attention two years ago. (What planet was I on?)

Anyone remember this as it unfolded?

Knowing that the "Falling" scenario was based on a true (not hypothetical) incident makes this episode all the more bizarre -- to me anyway. Can't wait to see it though. I certainly can see how irresistable the subject must have been to L&O showrunner Rene Balcer and his writing staff.

Boldfaces mine.

AL

P.S. The parents' blog -- referenced below -- is no longer accessible online but there are now other "Pillow Angel" sites offering "help and resources." I am still stunned by every facet of this case.
----------------

Pillow Angel Ethics

By Nancy Gibbs
Time
January 7, 2007

Excerpt:

"What kind of doctors would agree to intentionally shorten and sterilize a disabled six-year-old girl to make it easier for her parents to take care of her? The question has had message boards steaming for days, but the answers are in no way easy.

Dr. Daniel Gunther and Dr. Douglas Diekema, who first revealed the details of "The Ashley Case" in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, think that many of their critics don't understand the nature of this case. Talk to them, and you confront every modern challenge in weighing what medicine can do, versus what it should.

The case: Ashley is a brain-damaged girl whose parents feared that as she got bigger, it would be much harder to care for her; so they set out to keep her small. Through high-dose estrogen treatment over the past two years, her growth plates were closed and her prospective height reduced by about 13 inches, to 4'5". "Ashley's smaller and lighter size," her parents write on their blog "makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc." They stress that the treatment's goal was "to improve our daughter's quality of life and not to convenience her caregivers."

But the treatment went further: doctors removed her uterus to prevent potential discomfort from menstrual cramps or pregnancy in the event of rape; and also her breast tissue, because of a family history of cancer and fibrocystic disease. Not having breasts would also make the harness straps that hold her upright more comfortable. "Ashley has no need for developed breasts since she will not breast feed," her parents argue, "and their presence would only be a source of discomfort to her."

The parents say that the decision to proceed with "The Ashley Treatment" was not a hard one for them, but the same cannot be said for the doctors. "This was something people hadn't thought about being a possibility, much less being done," says Diekema, who chairs the bioethics committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics and was brought in to consult on this case. For the ethics committee of Seattle Children's Hospital, which reviewed the proposed treatment, "it took time to get past the initial response—'wow, this is bizarre'— and think seriously about the reasons for the parents' request," says Diekema. "

Find the full story at:
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1574851,00.html

Find Part 2 at
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1575325,00.html

[deathroe]

You know, I'm pretty sure SVU did this one as well. Can't remember the year or the context, but I think they did.

It is indeed stultifying.

[DonnaJo]

Don't feel badly, annabelle. I've never heard of this story either. And I do try & keep up with the basic headlines. Where was this hidden?

I'm fascinated thinking how Rene Balcer & his talented writing staff will handle this plotline. It has the potential of being horrific. I mean, how big did they imagine that this young girl would get? So....it would make sense to perform this procedure on all of those young brain damaged boys who will grow to be very big men? Didn't the medical people involved take any of this into consideration?

I see no mention of the cost for this procedure. I'm sure it wasn't free. Did insurance pay? If so, then we all paid with higher premiums.

Cannot wait until this is aired!

[annabelleleigh]

Sept 21, 2008 13:34:36 GMT -5 deathroe said:

You know, I'm pretty sure SVU did this one as well...

D-Roe, I can see why you think this story became an SVU episode:

Young girl+sexual organs+mutilation=SVU

However, I looked at the episode descriptions from the time the Ashley story broke through the present and I didn't find anything similar. I guess it didn't make the cut because there was no rape. SVU pretty much demands rape.

Now that I've googled up the various accounts from news organizations, it appears (to me) to be a story more better suited for the mothership's courtroom -- our virtual U.S. venue for examining society's complex moral, ethical, and legal issues. In 43 minutes.

AL

P.S. DJ -- I would think the medical insurance question alone could fill an entire episode.

[dragonsback]

Interesting ep notion. Marry the sensible with the bizarre. How the writers will handle grotesquerie - and turn it into a murder case - will be fascinating. Murder seems so trivial a plot point

Speaking of nothing related:Plenty of eps in the can, no eps on the screen. What gives? Are the L&O people on speeeeeed? Or is it commonplace to film so many episodes before the first air date? I feel as if I am experiencing this season on Amazon DVD reviews before the damn thing has ever been broadcast. (Hello, Albanian mobster pirates!)

[deathroe]

Ah, ok--there was one I am thinking of a while back where they kept a mentally challenged girl bedridden and harvested her eggs or something. Opposite thing. I'm afraid I have no motivation to look it up, but I will at some point, I guess.

[annabelleleigh]

Is every aspect of of every L&O plot suggested by news headlines?

I just stumbled across why "Falling's" opening tease features a crane accident at a construction site: Cranes apparently have been falling all over New York, according to this September 15, 2008 New York Post piece:

www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/news/regionalnews/osha_cites_contracters_in_deadly_crane_c_129226.htm

So this episode is apparently "deadly crane" grafted onto "pillow angel."

I wonder how much of the L&O writing effort depends on The New York Post.


AL

[djcifan]

You're correct, AL, there have been several deadly accidents involving cranes in Manhattan this year alone. I recognized both storylines immediately when I read these posts. In both the mothership and LOCI I often see smaller storylines (as well as big ones!) that are clearly referencing some odd event from the NY area news.

Regarding the child and the surgeries, I read several articles online at the NYTimes at the time, and many of the comments that were posted. Talk about hotbutton issue! As someone born moderately disabled, I spent a lot of my childhood in and out of hospitals, and remember seeing the struggles of some families whose children were in their teens so adultsized, but unable to care for themselves. But at the same time . . . that kind of surgery on a small child!! I had trouble imagining the almost coldblooded planning and organization of it.