TV watch
Find a Conversation
TV watch
| Sun, 01-27-2008 - 6:39am |
New TV Drama Will Explore Autism, Vaccines, and the Law
Wednesday January 23, 2008
ABC is about to launch itself into the middle of the autism/vaccine debate - much to the dismay of several major pharmaceutical companies. According to an article in today's New York Times,
A new legal drama making its debut this month on ABC is stepping into a subject that is the source of heated debate among some parents — the relationship between autism and childhood vaccines — and seemingly coming down on the side that has been all but dismissed by prominent scientific organizations.The producers of the show say they hope the series will provoke conversation. No doubt they'll be successful in that attempt!
The drama, “Eli Stone,” scheduled to be broadcast at 10 p.m. on Jan. 31, centers on a lawyer who begins having visions that cause him to question his life’s work defending large corporations, including a pharmaceutical company that makes vaccines.
The title character of “Eli Stone,” adopting the message of his visions to fight for the little guy, takes his first case: suing his former client on behalf of the mother of an autistic child who believes a mercury-based preservative in a vaccine caused her son’s autism....
“Is there proof that mercuritol causes autism?,” Eli Stone says to the jury in summing up his lawsuit against the vaccine maker. “Yes,” he says. “Is that proof direct or incontrovertible proof? No. But ask yourself if you’ve ever believed in anything or anyone without absolute proof.”The script also draws a parallel with research linking smoking and cancer, saying three decades passed between the first lawsuit charging a connection and the first jury award against a tobacco company. After the dramatic courtroom revelation that the chief executive of the vaccine maker did not allow his daughter’s pediatrician to give her the company’s vaccine, the jury in “Eli Stone” awards the mother $5.2 million.
What's your take on this drama? Is it a dramatic tool for bringing a major issue to national attention? Or is it just another way to turn others' misfortune into TV executives' cash? Express your opinion!

Thanks for this information.