User Reviews

It's not often a TV series features characters with surnames starting with Z, but here we go with Doctor Killer. Obviously the episode was supposed to engender antagonism towards the corrupt doctor with a so-called life saving cancer drug, but still, you wonder if the ends justified the means in this episode of Bull.

Wrong Premise for going to court is the basis of what makes drama here. A son confronts doctor to get answers to why he gave his mother non-tested (on humans) drugs to help cure her cancer. Especially when the drugs had her die a painful death. The Dr. is pushed into a fence that gives way and falls to his death.

The premise here it was accidental - yes, but isn't it the fact that the fence which was to protect people from falling down into a 50 foot drop/pit gave way? Not to then be charged with manslaughter, to talk about why he was angry at the Dr. and the Dr's ethics, etc.

That is irrelevant to the fence giving way. While young man shouldn't have pushed the Dr. in regular life, Dr. might have just fallen down, got up and lived.

This episode was confusing to me. I thought they were defending the boy on whether or not he committed murder. If that is the case then it shouldn't matter whether the doctor deserved it or not. The actions of the boy was on trial and not the intent of the doctor. Also the doctor was just doing his job and the fact he had 4 days left on his contract is just a coincidence. The doctor hesitated to suggest the drug and was not his first option for the patient thus no intent to cause harm. The trial overall made no sense and the case should have been either thrown out or reset if possible.

Seeing as this is a show about lawyers, law courts and all things legal and or judicial, I wonder if this show even has a legal advisor. I highly doubt it, because, as both other reviews have pointed out: the charge and the defence made no sense. In my opinion, this is how Law & Order (the original show) would have handled it: the detectives stumble on the body of the dead doctor. Maybe some witness has seen the boy push him against the fence. So they focus on the boy, who states that he did push the doctor against the fence, which then suddenly gave way, causing the doctor to fall to his death. The detectives then have a word with the assistant D.A. who states that the fence was put there to protect people from falling into a 50 feet deep hole, so it should never have been able to give way. The detectives then find the person responsible for not securing the fence and this person is charged with criminally negligent homicide. That the doctor was a stinker who earned a lot of money pushing an experimental medicine that hasn't been improved, has NO bearing at all. Whether you kill a rotten person or a saint, should have no influence on the penalty the killer gets. Otherwise we come to Chicago (the musical): "He had it coming."

As other reviews of this episode mention, it (the episode) doesn't really make sense. To avoid rehashing what the other reviews mention I'll bring up what bothered me the most. The whole case, the whole episode, hinges on the fact that the Doctor didn't inform the patient that an experimental drug hadn't been tested on humans before, but in-fact one of the very first things the doctor says to the patient (and her family) is that the drug "is in its first phase of human clinical trials". I have no medical expertise at all but it seems obvious to me that that would indicate that it had not been tested on humans before, or at least very few.