エピソード

  • The Doctor, The Syringe, and the Crown That Fell in London

    The Doctor, The Syringe, and the Crown That Fell in London
    2026/10/29
    The Doctor, The Syringe, and the Crown That Fell in London

    A sapphire cross fell from the Imperial State Crown onto wet cobbles as George V’s coffin passed through London - a public jolt that mirrored a private one: two days earlier a doctor had recorded using a syringe of morphine and cocaine on the king. Why did the palace tell the nation a peaceful death while a physician’s diary later revealed something far more deliberate?

    In this episode, we recount the king’s final days at Sandringham, the bulletin written on a menu card, and the hidden diary of Lord Dawson of Penn that contradicts the official account - and we ask what it means when institutions decide the public cannot bear the full truth.

    Person: George V
    Date: 23 January 1936
    Location: Sandringham to Wolferton station to Westminster Hall
    Person: Lord Dawson of Penn
    Event: Injection of morphine and cocaine into the king’s jugular vein on 20 January 1936

    - The sapphire cross pattee detached from the Imperial State Crown and fell onto the wet cobblestones during the funeral procession.
    - George V died at 11:55 p.m. on 20 January 1936 after injections, according to Lord Dawson’s diary.
    - Lord Dawson wrote the official bulletin on a menu card at 9:25 p.m. stating the king was “moving peacefully to its close.”
    - The coffin procession from Sandringham to Wolferton station covered 2.5 miles on foot three days after the king’s death.
    - George V was 70 years old in January 1936 and had chronic bronchitis with oxygen tanks at his bedside.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    25 分
  • Awake on the Table: When Your Surgeon Becomes the Threat

    Awake on the Table: When Your Surgeon Becomes the Threat
    2026/10/28
    Awake on the Table: When Your Surgeon Becomes the Threat

    Imagine lying on an operating table, chest open, heart stopped, and hearing every word above you while your body is paralyzed - anesthesia awareness is real and the film Awake builds a thriller around that documented phenomenon. The movie claimed a rate of one in 700 for awareness, spawned a public dispute between an anesthesiology organization and a patient advocate, and left a question that won't let go: what happens when the person with the scalpel is the one who wants you dead?

    In this episode, we lay out the facts of the film Awake and the real medical issue it dramatizes, describing the plot, the key players, and the controversy over anesthesia awareness - and we ask whether the ethical and forensic questions the film raised have been resolved.

    Person: Clay Beresford Jr.
    Event: Heart transplant surgery with anesthesia awareness
    Date: November 30, 2007 (film release)
    Budget: $8.6 million
    Box office: $32.7 million worldwide

    - The film Awake was released on November 30, 2007 and was not screened in advance for critics by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
    - The production budget for Awake was $8.6 million and it earned $32.7 million worldwide.
    - Awake claims an anesthesia awareness rate of one in 700, a figure that triggered public dispute between a professional anesthesiology organization and a patient advocate.
    - The surgeon Dr. Jack Harper, portrayed in the film, has four malpractice suits and plans to sabotage a donor heart by injecting it with Adriamycin.
    - Clay and Samantha marry at midnight the night before surgery as part of a long-con strategy to keep Clay away from his preferred surgeon and ensure surgical access.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    28 分
  • Three Hundred Thousand Units: When Treatment Silenced a Child

    Three Hundred Thousand Units: When Treatment Silenced a Child
    2026/10/27
    Three Hundred Thousand Units: When Treatment Silenced a Child

    The moment a doctor injected three hundred thousand units of penicillin into a boy's spine-thirty times the prescribed ten thousand-the child convulsed, developed hemiparesis, and later could not hear. Which caused the deafness: the meningitis that nearly killed him, or the massive intrathecal overdose that followed treatment?

    In this episode, we lay out the clinical timeline, the documented overdose, and the legal battle that reached Scotland’s highest courts to determine causation. How did courts weigh the simultaneous violence of bacterial meningitis against an unambiguous thirty-fold drug error?

    Person: the boy (identified by family name in records)
    Event: intrathecal injection of benzylpenicillin
    Date: discharged on 24 December (year not specified)
    Dose prescribed: 10,000 units
    Dose administered: 300,000 units

    - The administered dose was 300,000 units of penicillin delivered into the subarachnoid space.
    - The prescribed intrathecal dose was 10,000 units, making the overdose thirty times the intended amount.
    - Immediate toxic effects reported included convulsions and hemiparesis following the injection.
    - The child survived the bacterial meningitis and was discharged from hospital on 24 December.
    - The central legal question was whether the meningitis or the penicillin overdose caused the permanent deafness.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    23 分
  • The Thumb‑Sized Tissue That Unmasked a Fatal Surgical Lie

    The Thumb‑Sized Tissue That Unmasked a Fatal Surgical Lie
    2026/10/26
    The Thumb‑Sized Tissue That Unmasked a Fatal Surgical Lie

    A thumbnail‑sized fragment of gland preserved in a jar became the only physical trace that proved a twenty‑two‑year‑old Singaporean had been operated on for a disease she did not have. That tiny tissue travelled between pathologists and across countries to expose discrepancies between hormonal tests, scans, and a surgeon’s claims-so how did routine medical care become a fatal deception?

    In this episode, we tell the sequence of events from the collapse on 24 March 1985 through the surgery on 6 June 1985 and the months that followed, laying out the medical details, family actions, and expert testimony that raised the central question: why was surgery performed when hormone levels and imaging did not support a pituitary tumor?

    Person: Chong Yun Jing
    Date: 6 June 1985
    Location: Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore
    Surgeon: Dr. Lim Djoe Phing
    Pathologist: Dr. Seah Han Cheow

    - A tissue fragment the size of a thumbnail was the only physical evidence remaining after the rest of the body had been cremated.
    - Chong collapsed on 24 March 1985 and remained under medical attention until surgery in June 1985.
    - Surgeon Dr. Lim removed a pituitary gland fragment and recorded the diagnosis as pituitary tumor post‑operation.
    - Endocrinologist Dr. John A. Tambyah later testified that Chong’s hormonal readings were normal, not abnormal as claimed.
    - Radiologist Dr. Low Chen Hoong testified that one scan is insufficient and at least four radiological assessments are required to confirm a brain tumor.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    29 分
  • Born a Harm: The Court That Said Existence Was an Injury

    Born a Harm: The Court That Said Existence Was an Injury
    2026/10/25
    Born a Harm: The Court That Said Existence Was an Injury

    Existence as injury: in 1980 a California appeals court allowed a wrongful life suit on behalf of a child with Tay-Sachs, ruling that "such a plaintiff both exists and suffers, due to the negligence of others." Could a court really treat being born as the legal harm, and what did that mean for medicine and law?

    In this episode, we walk through the facts of Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories, the medical realities of Tay-Sachs, and the legal leap that asked whether nonexistence could be preferable to life. How did a single genetic test, a skipped amniocentesis, and a laboratory's assurances produce a case that reshaped legal thinking about who can be wronged?

    Person: child-plaintiff represented by legal guardian
    Date: 1980 (California Court of Appeal decision)
    Case: Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories
    Disease: Tay-Sachs (infantile form)
    Medical test: genetic screening and missed detection leading parents to skip amniocentesis

    - The court's key sentence: "such a plaintiff both exists and suffers, due to the negligence of others." (seven words)
    - Tay-Sachs leads to death usually before age five in the classic infantile form.
    - If both parents carry the Tay-Sachs mutation, each pregnancy has a 1-in-4 chance of producing an affected child.
    - The parents relied on Bio-Science Laboratories' representation that its genetic test was reliable and therefore did not pursue amniocentesis.
    - Before Curlender in 1980, no American high court had held that existence itself could be the legal injury.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    26 分
  • When a Doctor's Silence Decides a Child's Fate

    When a Doctor's Silence Decides a Child's Fate
    2026/10/24
    When a Doctor's Silence Decides a Child's Fate

    A pregnant woman contracted rubella in 1975 and left her physician’s office without a single warning; her child was born with severe disabilities that the medical community already linked to prenatal rubella exposure. Could a doctor’s silence - not an act, but an omission - be the legal injury that reshapes informed consent and medical duty?

    In this episode, we tell the story of Dortha Jean Jacobs, her daughter Lesli, and the Texas Supreme Court decision on February 19, 1975 that held a doctor’s silence could constitute malpractice. We trace how the case reframed what patients are owed, what doctors must disclose, and who decides whether a family is warned in time.

    Person: Dortha Jean Jacobs
    Person: Lesli Jacobs
    Event: Texas Supreme Court decision
    Date: February 19, 1975
    Topic: Doctor’s silence as legal injury

    - Dortha Jean Jacobs contracted rubella during pregnancy and received no warning or documented disclosure from her physician.
    - Rubella in the first trimester was known in 1975 to cause deafness, blindness, heart defects, and intellectual disabilities.
    - Lesli was born severely disabled and the legal record traced her condition to prenatal rubella exposure.
    - The Jacobs family sued arguing the physician’s omission deprived them of the ability to choose whether to continue the pregnancy.
    - On February 19, 1975, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a doctor’s silence could be a legal injury, altering the standard for medical negligence.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    26 分
  • The Silence That Cost a Choice: Birth Law Born in Rubella Case

    The Silence That Cost a Choice: Birth Law Born in Rubella Case
    2026/10/23
    The Silence That Cost a Choice: Birth Law Born in Rubella Case

    A single unremarkable silence in 1971 - a doctor who failed to warn a pregnant patient after a rubella infection - forced the Texas Supreme Court to answer a question no U.S. court had before: can a physician be liable for failing to inform a patient what a disease might do? How did that quiet omission reshape informed consent and give birth to the wrongful birth doctrine?

    In this episode, we tell the story of Dortha Jean Jean, the clinical encounter she experienced, and the legal path she and her husband took to the Texas Supreme Court; we describe the ruling that recognized a cause of action for wrongful birth and ask what it meant for parents, doctors, and the law.

    Person: Dortha Jean Jean
    Date: 1971 (illness), February 19, 1975 (ruling)
    Event: Rubella infection during pregnancy leading to birth of Lesli
    Court: Texas Supreme Court
    Outcome: Recognized a cause of action for wrongful birth

    - The patient contracted rubella in 1971 and was pregnant at the time.
    - The doctor examined Dortha, did not diagnose rubella correctly, and did not warn her of risks to the fetus.
    - Lesli was born severely disabled as a result of congenital rubella.
    - On February 19, 1975, the Texas Supreme Court wrote: "We hold that a cause of action for wrongful birth exists in Texas."
    - The court allowed recovery for costs tied to the disability (specialized care and medical expenses) but not ordinary child-rearing costs.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?

    Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?
    2026/10/22
    Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?

    Fear that silence can steal a decision: a Texas ruling in 1975 made it possible to sue not for causing a child's disability but for depriving parents of information about maternal rubella-could withholding a diagnosis be a legal harm? What did courts mean when they recognized "wrongful birth," and how could a lost choice ever be proved?

    In this episode, we tell the story of Dortha Jean Jacobs, the Texas Supreme Court's February 19, 1975 decision, and the doctrine that followed; we trace how a physician’s failure to disclose a rubella infection led to a novel legal claim and the unresolved questions it raised about causation and the implications for children and parents.

    Person: Dortha Jean Jacobs
    Person: Lesli Jacobs
    Date: February 19, 1975
    Event: Texas Supreme Court ruling recognizing wrongful birth
    Topic: Failure to disclose maternal rubella diagnosis

    - Dortha Jean Jacobs became ill with rubella during pregnancy and received no diagnosis or warning from her doctor.
    - Lesli Jacobs was born severely disabled as a result of congenital rubella.
    - The Texas Supreme Court held there was a patient-doctor relationship and negligent failure to disclose risk, creating a new cause of action.
    - The ruling framed the harm as the foreclosure of the parents’ choice, not as the child’s existence being a harm.
    - Plaintiffs must prove what decision they would have made if given truthful information, requiring testimony about whether they would have terminated the pregnancy.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    27 分