Law & Order

This was a very sad episode. The brother committing suicide in front of the detectives was hard to watch. This had to be one of the most painful to watch episodes ever. The subject matter was depressing and watching little kids die is heart wrenching. It's hard to be reminded that AIDS is still effecting our population.

Heartstrings. It's what "Law & Order" likes to tug at opportune moments. Not since the kid whose junkie mother sold him to a drug dealer for her next fix has there been an episode quite so emotionally troubling. It begins with a homicide in a restaurant and after a wild goose chase, the cops realize that the man who died wasn't the target, the manager of the hospital he was standing next to was. The homicidal teenager responsible was seeking revenge for the "murder" of his younger sister, who died of AID's. He takes his life in the street standing a half dozen feet from Fontana, and the police determine his case is worth investigating. What they unearth is a series of experimental procedures on dying children, beneath the capable hands of an attending physician. Administering new and non-human-safe drugs on his child patients, the doctor claims the risk is worth it in the name of finding a cure for the most currently devastating disease on the planet.



It's not until the second half that the twist is revealed: the doctor is dying of the same strain of AID's that killed the little girl. Suddenly, his experiments take on a new level, that of using children as lab rats in the hopes of finding his own cure. But when the prosecutors take it to trial, the audience is surprised and disturbed when the jury lets him off the hook. I had to watch this episode twice before fully allowing myself to contemplate its ramifications. It implied that the jury was willing to sacrifice a child, two children, four children, as many as they needed, in the name of research. When does a failing human life become more important than the cure millions are attempting to find? In a society where we abort babies because they are "inconvenient," this becomes all the more tragic and poignant. I believed the doctor really was attempting to serve his own selfish end, with no regard for the anguish and suffering he caused the child. I believe he deserved a conviction. But obviously the people on the jury disagreed with me.



It might not seem that impacting on first visitation, but as the truth slowly sinks into its audience, it hits a nerve.