and you know what i would have paid good money not just to see more langdon/samira dynamic in season two, but to also see what heather would add to the dynamic especially with baran's entrance and robby's mental health, favouritism and bias. genuinely, i'd pay.
heather and samira's relationship and dynamic in season one was so good, because heather was one of the few people robby listened to and she used it to her advantage to help samira. heather also had a good teasing relationship with langdon and they both benefitted from robby's favouritism in different ways. her because she used to date robby and he still pines for her, him because he's robby's golden boy. and langdon and samira's bond? it was very clear who was the favourite child, because samira had neither of the advantages that heather or langdon had, but samira very clearly recognised how differently she was being treated, especially in season two. hell, heather noticed that in season one and brought a lot of positive reinforcement towards samira and added a lot of value to the storylines in season one.
i would have also loved to see all of that heather/langdon/samira dynamic explored more in the context al hashimi joining the crew and in regards to langdon's recovery. how robby struggles with giving up control and leadership and his attempts to undermine al hashimi. how how langdon realises that robby is not the perfect mentor, and hasn't been for a while. that samira realises that nothing she can do will be enough and that robby won't ever acknowledge that he failed her. what would heather have to say about all of that?
how different would the heather/langdon/samira dynamics be after langdon had been gone all that time, how different would it be now that samira and langdon are both R4's with heather as an attending/fellow? how different would it be with baran, especially since robby used his status as attending against heather several times in season one(re: 'you have no fucking respect for your superiors')? what would her reaction be to robby treating his fellow chief his badly?
how would she have reacted to robby's treatment of langdon, samira and al hashimi? robby treated them all very differently, but his behavior towards them was unacceptable and hard to watch regardless. would she have been able to get through to him? how worried would she have been for him? would she have defended langdon, samira and baran or would she also be a victim of his mental downward spiral? what struggles would she currently be having post miscarriage in her attempts to adopt a baby? heather i miss you, those writers didn't understand how important you were to the plot
@thepittmonth Week 3 (July 13-19): patients, cases, and healthcare
#Doctor As Patients Series: Patient Patterns
Langdon:Â Connections with Psych Patients
THE PITTÂ 1x02 = 1x06 = 1x08 = 2x02 = 2x11 = 2x12
I CAN make gifsets without meta-yapping...but where's the fun in that!? So yappage/some expansion and explanation on each of these beats and maybe some talk around bits I didn't end up including (curse u 30-image limit!!) but that are still relevant. Bc this is another one of those 'if I had a nickel for every one...it's weird it's happened x number of times tho' situations.
So I'm not saying it's absolutely definitely for sure a solid 100% canon thing that Frank has some kind of connection to/experience with a close family member/friend with some sort of psych/neurological issue... But I AM saying I'm willing to put a reasonable little chunk of money on it at this point.
Esp when you factor in Joe Sachs saying that, "The secret of our success is we always start with the dramatic needs of our character, and then we go to the well [...] of hundreds of thousands of medical stories."
Which I always factor in bc 1)- it's a great quote/philosophy and 2)- it legitimises my inclination to seek out patterns in the kinds of patients/illnesses the characters treat multiple times and/or how they react to certain kinds of patients/illnesses. So we're gonna talk about both of those things!
We'll go patient-by-patient and in chronological order. Bc I'm a crazy motherfucker like that:
1x02 + 1x06: Beto
First and foremost: I never EVER as long as I LIVE E V E R want any of y'all to come at me and attempt to convince me that Frank Langdon (yes, even season 1 Frank Langdon!!) didn't care/had no compassion or empathy or genuine concern for people/that he had to "learn empathy" between seasons or whatever shit.
That man recognises Beto, an EVS worker who he hasn't seen IN YEARS (and who's implied to have worked night shift previously - so either my 'Frank used to work nights/Robby stole him from Abbot' headcanon may have some merit OR he's just got: that good a memory (his memory is p fucking great btw) REGARDLESS - he recognises him pretty much immediately, remembers him by name (and is HAPPY to see him!!!), remembers that he retired, and remembers him well enough to judge pretty much straight away that he's not himself/that there's something a little bit off here.
At which point he: immediately becomes protective/wants to make sure that he's okay and is being taken care of and goes to check-in with Dana. (That unimpressed/mildly disbelieving 'really?' at Beto's family not coming to collect him for a few hours is also v interesting - keep that in ur back pocket, we shall return to it later).
That and his lil check-in with Beto again in 1x06 is v sweet - and that line to Robby re "that'll be us one day" is....well it takes on a slightly different cast/tone if Frank DOES have any connection to/family history of psych/neurological issues. And Frank? Making jokes/light of a very real situation to #Cope?? Noooo!! He would N E V E R. /s
1x08 - Willie Alexander
I love Willie's case for a lot of reasons - Frank does some EXCELLENT teaching as part of it for a start, but it's also one of the patients we get to see him spend some time with and really get to know/bond with rather than ping-ponging from issue to issue as he's prone to. I also love the way he sits and very obviously eagerly learns from Willie and his history with the Freedom House ambulance service. I also really enjoy the little beat that I've giffed - which is relevant for the discussion of memory/forgetting things vs 'remembering what's important'. But also the fact Frank is obviously happy to see the joking between father and son re Willie's condition/that he Gets that joking and his reaction to it makes him feel included in it/part of it. He feels comfortable and familiar with this sort of thing.
He's also great with Willie re explaining to him the procedures that are going on, and talking back and forth with him re his medical knowledge and giving repeat reassurances - but he doesn't dismiss him or not explain things to him, or simply talk to Eli (his son), he makes sure Willie's kept in the loop and is aware of what's happening with him and why (which sounds hella basic/like it should be a given but it is: not. Esp not for older adults/those with problems like dementia or otherwise).
2x02 The Hansens
I got a lotta thoughts re this family and their gift that keeps on giving to the ED, keeping 'em ticking over through the hours. And I see a lot of parallels/things to yap about with regards to Frank's interactions with them. But for the purposes of this I'm honing in on Frank: dissociating to fuck/zoning the heck out and just doing his job in a v mechanical way until we start getting 'crazy' and 'psycho' thrown around - and he picks up the connection to the racing family, but he also definitely reacts to those terms/the idea of it running in the family. Those lines feel Deliberate/we could've said anything here to bring up the grandads names but instead we dropped more breadcrumbs.
2x11-2x12 Micah Azurmendi
Frank and Baran share many #SignificantLooks between these cases, but this is one where I think Frank's reactions are more telling than what's going on. But first off, the look between Frank and Baran re potential damage to Micah's brain is Interesting (Baran's connection to this case/to neurological complications is fairly obvious, given her seizures - Frank's less so). But both he and Baran are fairly firm in not judging Brenda or jumping to the conclusion that she harmed Micah deliberately (both are actually fairly firm on NOT making that judgement in how they speak about the case/react to others, which feels v interesting to me).
I will acknowledge here, too, that there are obviously some parallels/connections to be drawn between a parent accidentally (or otherwise) harming their child and being unable to see them with the potential for what might have happened to either Tanner or Penny had they ever found/taken any of Frank's benzos during his addiction/the fact that at some point over the 10 months, Abby apparently threatened divorce/Frank was afraid he might lose his kids. I'm sure there is definitely an element in there (esp with Micah being around Tanner's age) but I think there's more to this case, largely around how Frank behaves with regards to Micah's mum.
ESPECIALLY because of the difference in how he reacts with Brenda/her case here vs how he responds towards Tyler (pot-gummy boy from s1) and his parents. In that case he's a lot more cynical, after Mel expresses concern over seeing families torn apart, he assures her that they'll be fine, and she asks how he can be so sure, to which he replies, "They're white. Probably get off with a slap on the wrist. If they weren't, she'd probably lose her child and he'd end up going to jail, butâ" - I've commented on this scene before and it's INTERESTING, because it's a side of Frank we don't see all that often (not so much the cynicism/snark) but there's....there's definitely a feeling of something like bitterness in him here. He knows the system prioritises/will let white families away with things others won't get away with and there's a feeling like he knows this to his cost/it's definitely not something he approves of.
For the purposes of this, tho, it's night and day vs how he reacts towards Brenda's case/circumstances.
2x11-2x12 Brenda Azurmendi
Frank is shown numerous times (which I giffed above for ur consumption and enjoyment!) to be very concerned about/protective towards Brenda. As stated he repeatedly avoids casting doubt/judgement on her for having intentionally harmed her son - he also advocates for her/asks after her multiple times.
-The very obvious concern he shows when Brenda has a 302 called/is placed on a hold and his first query is whether or not she's going to be able to see her son (which, interestingly (to me) he directs towards Baran, not Robby, even though Robby is his typical/instinctual go-to for answering questions/fixing things that have gone wrong in the world. Then the follow-up on what happens if Micah is ready to be discharged before Brenda is herself? - That second one is actually almost more interesting to me than the first; because it DOESN'T align (at all) with Frank's life/experience with HIS kiddos. Because even if/while he was in rehab and unable to see or look after them - he knew that they had Abby.
-Then the question (again to Baran) on if she thinks that Brenda will be okay. Frank... I don't think we've seen Frank question this about any of his patients before (most of them I think he KNOWS how they are/how they're going to be because he's worked on them and knows the next steps. Brenda's case is a bit more up in the air/uncertain - this isn't something with an easy fix or answer - but it also feels like he's seeking reassurance/this is a situation that he's worried about/that he's dwelling on a bit and wants to talk about, and he knows Baran cares as well and that she's spoken to Brenda at this point, so he's looking for a follow-up on the case, but it's obvious he's concerned/this is more than just a purely clinical 'what are the next steps' kind of a question - he's obviously worried.
-More #SignificantLooks exchanged between him and Baran when Brenda asks if she killed her son. I think, again, worried FOR her rather than worried at what she might have done (even after this he still doesn't cast judgement/in the next beat where they talk about her husband visiting he's still very clearly feeling protective towards Brenda/isn't seeing this as an admission of guilt but rather an indicator that she's not okay/needs help herself).
-Aaand yes there we go that brings us onto him obviously feeling Some Kinda Way about the fact her husband didn't come to see her or check-in at all about her but just went directly upstairs. And we get a reprisal of that disbelieving/judgemental 'really???'. Which, okay, the one word is a fun lil connection/parallel but not necessarily deliberate, however, the TONE/this being the second time Frank expresses fairly obvious judgement/disapproval (which - is actually NOT that typical for him at all, honestly, he doesn't tend to show particularly strong feelings/reactions towards any of his patients regardless, he just treats them).
But THIS? This is something that GETS him and that draws a notable response/judgement from him both times, and in both cases, it's a scenario involving a person with likely psychiatric issues and their family not coming to see them/get them straight-away/perhaps not showing enough concern for or acknowledgement of the seriousness of the issue? Uncertain. Either way, in both cases Frank is obviously Concerned/not a happy bunny, and there's definitely an instinct of care/protectiveness towards both of them.
I just. I Feel it, people, i Feel It, Frank's close with someone who's had additional care needs - maybe where those WEREN'T respected/he/they had to fight for that. I FEEL IT OKAY.
At this point I am begging the show to give me some: actual Frank backstory otherwise I'm just gonna keep manifesting my own based on vibes here, people, istg.
âFirst and foremost: I never EVER as long as I LIVE E V E R want any of y'all to come at me and attempt to convince me that Frank Langdon (yes, even season 1 Frank Langdon!!) didn't care/had no compassion or empathy or genuine concern for people/that he had to "learn empathy" between seasons or whatever shit.â
^^^THIS!^^^
love the headcanon first of all and makes total sense given how the show is very obvious in matching patient issues to characters who can relate.
but also I am so so happy to see people push back on the frequently unchecked popular take that langdonâs bedside manner and patient care somehow became very good in the 10 months he was out of work and, yâknow, not seeing patients at all.
whilst langdon is definitely noticeably more relaxed in s2, his approach to patient care doesnât really change. other than 2 notable examples (the seizure guy and the table tennis guy - who tbh he was still polite too he just didnât know how to approach him) langdon is time and again shown to have a really adaptable and comforting bedside manner. heâs seen multiple times in both seasons calmly telling anxious patients the procedures the team are doing with as little medical jargon as possible, he has a plethora of pop culture references in his toolbox that he pullâs from depending on the patient and their interests to build a rapport with them, and he can balance objectivity and empathy very well.
Iâm just so beyond tired of both antis AND shippers deliberately misinterpreting langdon as a character to fit their own agendas.
I am a 3L in law school. I have interned for a judge in the criminal division, a federal public defender, and a state attorney generalâs office that dealt with license revocation proceedings by regulatory boards; I am familiar with how the system works, how the sentencing guidelines work, etc. Here is an informal version of the memo I would write were I a law clerk or an intern for a judge assigned to Frank Langdonâs case, with modifications for both federal and state courtâessentially I did the factual and legal research I would do, and this reflects where it took me, but with none of the framing. The facts I am using based on what we have seen on the show are below; if someone thinks that these are not the facts that should be used for some reason, feel free to say so, but I will be blocking anyone who does so disrespectfully or accuses me of minimizing his conduct towards Santosâall I am dealing with are feasible legal consequences.
-Langdon received legitimate prescriptions to an opioid and a benzodiazepine under the care of a licensed physician (Dr. Hagan) after injuring his back. (In the confrontation with Robby in 1x10, he refers to âpain meds and muscle relaxants.â Only some benzodiazepines are muscle relaxants, and none are used for pain relief; lorazepam is a muscle relaxant, but Librium (chlordiazepoxide) is not. Opioids, on the other hand, are commonly prescribed for pain relief).
-He became chemically dependent on the benzodiazepine. (I am not going to speculate about whether or not he also developed an opioid addiction for these purposes because we havenât seen him take any or talk about being addicted to both; on what weâve seen, a prosecutor would have enough to charge on benzos but not opioids. Personally, I believe he became dependent on both and was more easily able to justify staying on the benzos to himselfâsome are used to treat withdrawal symptoms, at least in alcoholics, and opioids are both more addictive and more notorious than benzos. I think he truly managed to convince himself he was not addicted to the benzos and was only using them to combat an opioid addiction, even though it was not the case).
-He began taking benzodiazepines from work to support this chemical dependency. He would do this in two ways:
-One was to steal portions of prescriptions he wrote for Louie and other frequent flyers in the ER who were resistant to acknowledging they have an alcohol problem or at least to combating itâbecause they are unlikely to pay attention to how many meds are actually in the prescription or to take the full schedule as directed. I do not think he overprescribed to do so; that would be more likely to draw attention, and Santos was not confused at the 20-pill prescription written for Louie, suggesting it was an appropriate numberâshe only seemed surprised that half of the script was missing.
-The other was to order extra meds when a case came in that would justify doing so, withdraw a portion of the medication from the extra vial, refill the rest of the vial with saline, use medical glue to reseal the vial, and return the vial to the Pyxis with a note that it had ended up being unnecessary. Again, we saw him do this on Louieâs case, Santos discovered the vial, and the rest is history.
-He was not high while he was at work. Benzodiazepines are central nervous system suppressant (CNS) medications. This is why they are prescribed to treat anxiety, withdrawal symptoms, and used to stop seizuresâthey make someone calmer or less jittery, not manic. The behavior we see from Langdon on the day of the PittFest shift is more consistent with withdrawal symptomsâhe is irritable, has difficulty remaining still and controlling his temper, is (as Mel notes) sweating heavily, and so on. He is exhibiting these symptoms as early as episode 1, and they get more prevalent over the course of the day, not lessâlike they would if he took either of the medications we know he stole that day. Symptoms like these tend to occur within 1-4 days of discontinuation in someone dependent on benzos. Based on this, Langdonâs most likely pattern of use was to stockpile medication when he had opportunities to do so on shift and use when he got homeâwhich again, is something an addict would have an easier time justifying to himself than using while at work as an emergency medicine doctor. As time went on, he may have reached a point where he used at work and learned how to justify it to himself, but I donât believe he reached that point, because he very clearly did not have such justification prepared in the confrontation with Robby in 1x10.
-The physical evidence we would have for court from season 1 related to his diverting are: the pills Robby found in his locker that matched the imprint code on Louieâs prescription, a record of his prescribing history (such as how often he would order an extra vial of meds and return it to the Pyxis), and the vial and cap Santos held on to. Thatâs it. What this means is the only rock-solid case a prosecutor has is for theft of 10 pills of Librium and 2 milliliters of lorazepam; it would be very easy for a defense attorney to create reasonable doubt around his prescribing records. (Personally, I would call Dana as a witness and have her testify to exactly what she told Santos when she was investigating: it happens all the time, to more than just Langdon, it is not indicative of theft every time; then I would enter another doctorâs prescribing history, probably Robby or Abbotâs, and point out how often they drew and returned meds as well).
-Federally, benzodiazepines are a Schedule 4 substance (shoutout @rolandtowen for pointing this out on my other post). Pennsylvania uses the same scheduling system as the federal government.
-At the state level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
§ 780-113(a)(2), the adulteration or misbranding of any controlled substance, other drug, device, or cosmetic. An adulterated drug or device as defined by § 780-007 includes one that has had any substance âmixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength, or[ ]substituted wholly or in part therefor [sic].
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offenseâwhich this is. If he was criminally charged, he probably would not be going to trial, for reasons I will discuss after listing possible charges.
§ 780-113(a)(12), the acquisition or obtaining of possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge; he was misrepresenting his use of medication in the Pyxis records. He could potentially be hit with multiple charges under this provision, depending on if he was overprescribing meds to Louie and others to take the excess, rather than prescribing appropriately and taking a portion because he knew they would not miss it.
This charge is a felony under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than three years in prison and/or a fine not exceeding $10,000. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
§ 780-113(a)(16), Pennsylvaniaâs simple possession with the intent for personal use provisionâpossession of a controlled substance that was not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription or a manner otherwise authorized in the act.
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
Pennsylvaniaâs Controlled Substances Act includes a provision (§ 780-142) that a federal conviction or acquittal for the same instance of wrongful conduct would require the state charges to be droppedâeven though itâs not technically a Double Jeopardy Clause violation for both state and federal government to prosecute someone for the same act. This means that if Langdon was prosecuted, it would be at either the federal or the state level, not at both.
-At the federal level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
21 U.S.C. § 331(b), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(2). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or fined no more than $1000 under 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(1).
21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(12). A first offense is a felony; if convicted at trial he could be sentenced to no more than 4 years in prison and/or have to pay a fine, the amount of which the statute directs the judge to decide based on the fines available for sentencing in Title 18âthe US criminal code.
21 U.S.C. § 844 (a), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(16). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he would be fined at least $1000 and could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail as wellâthe fine is a required penalty in the statute, the jail time is not.
-Now, all of these are options for charging; there is no definitive way to say, âthis is what he would have been charged with if criminal consequences were pursued.â Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on whether or not to charge someone and what to charge them with, as well as whether to offer plea deals and what those plea deals look like.
-The District Attorney for Allegheny County is Stephen Zappala, Jr.; he has held the position since 1998. His bio on the DAâs public website emphasizes his belief in criminal justice reform, leniency for first time offenders, and he created a Drug Court diversionary program in Allegheny County. Drug courts typically offer one of two methods of avoiding jail or prison time: diversion prior to pleading, in which case the charges would be dropped upon successful completion of the program, or a plea deal where a suspended sentence is imposed pending completion of the program, and a defendant who successfully does so avoids jail or prison time and sometimes has their record sealed or expunged as part of the process; Allegheny Countyâs drug court is the latter (In the FAQ about drug court, one of the questions is "do I have to enter a plea before beginning the drug court program?" and the answer is yes).
-Based on the priorities of the Allegheny County DA, state court proceedings would likely look like this:
-Langdon is charged with one or all of the state offenses. His attorney reaches out to the ADA assigned to the case to discuss a plea deal with completion of drug court rather than a carceral sentence. Langdon pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of simple possession and receives a suspended sentence pending completion of the drug court program, which includes an individualized assessment of how to help him overcome his addiction. If he completes it successfully, he is not going to see jail time. While I canât find anything as to whether his misdemeanor record is then sealed, expunged, or otherwise affected once he completes drug court in Allegheny County specifically, one of the defining features of drug courts generally is the dismissal of charges or expungement of convictions when successfully completed.
-The ADA would report the plea of guilty to a misdemeanor and participation in drug court to the Board of Medicine; his license would be automatically suspended. The Board of Medicine would then hold a hearing to determine if Langdon is an appropriate candidate for a PHP; if so, they would lift the suspension of his license and direct him to participate in a PHP for a period of 3-5 years. If he successfully completed the PHP, he would retain his license.
-Ten months is long enough for all of this to take place if he pled guilty/accepted the plea agreement when he first appeared before a judge, which does happen; a plea agreement in exchange for participation in drug court is hardly novel.
-Even if he was not criminally reported but was instead only reported for diversion to the Board of Medicine, ten months is long enough for the Board to hold a hearing on his license and decide to place him in the PHP rather than take more severe punitive action. The one thing I am not sure of and cannot find online is whether the Board would be required to report him for criminal proceedings as well if the diversion is reported, but the policy considerations that the state of Pennsylvania has behind offering avenues to let practitioners keep licensure and receive treatment for substance abuse disorder make me think it is unlikely.
-To be clear, both drug court monitoring and PHP monitoring are incredibly invasive; they involve counseling, random drug testing, and community supervision (which means limited privacy in the home not only for himself but for his family, as his assigned supervisory probation officer would not have to meet the usual probable cause requirement to search his home). Drug court participation requires frequent appearances in court, and PHP monitoring often involves mandatory forms of treatmentâlike attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a program that relies on religion and belief in a higher power in its process, although it claims to be spiritual rather than religious.
Federal proceedings, on the other hand, would look a little different:
First of all, it is very unlikely he would be charged federally at all. The U.S. Attorneyâs website has press releases going back to 2013 dealing with indictments, sentences, convictions, and plea deals deemed significant enough to warrant public notification. This is obviously not indicative of all cases charged and convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it gives a good picture of the federal governmentâs priorities in prosecution of drug crimes. There is not a single federal case on this page where a doctor was indicted, convicted, or sentenced on simple possession for any schedule of drug, or indeed of any drug crime that did not include illegal distribution of Schedule III or higher meds to others and/or defrauding Medicare or Medicaid. There is a single case under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3) that involved illegally obtaining drugs for personal use, but it was by a woman who was forging prescriptions to get meds from pharmacies, not a doctor diverting meds from patients.
-Something else indicative of the unlikelihood of federal pursuit of charges under these circumstances is that there are no published federal criminal cases in LexisNexis (one of the databases for court decisions used by lawyers) against a doctor for diverting or adulterating drugs for personal use, nor for simple possession, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. When and if the federal government bothers to charge doctors in Langdonâs position, their cases are not resulting in opinions or orders by judges.
If Langdon was, for some reason, federally charged, the US Attorneyâs office would likely charge him with the felony under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), and then offer to let him plead out to a misdemeanor, whether adulteration or simple possession.
- Even if he was charged with and convicted of all three offenses, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months in jail, and likely would be sentenced instead to a term of supervised release no longer than three years, with conditions imposed to help him overcome his addiction.
Both of the above paths are what we in the legal fieldâand I am sure many othersâcall consequences for Langdonâs actions, even without the imposition of jail or prison time that Robby and Santos seem so sure is the only way that Langdon can face consequences. I have many points in making this post; one is that Robby and Santos have no idea what they are talking about in terms of punishment Langdon would be facing. Another is that jail or prison time is very unlikely, as is loss of licensure. Drug dependency rewires an addictâs brain, and while this does not excuse Langdon diverting drugs or treating Santos in the manner that he did, our court system recognizes that it does explain it.
Santos doesnât have to forgive him or even accept his apology, but she is wrong when she says he should have gone to prison, and she is cruel, or at least unempathetic, to wish relapse on himâeven, perhaps especially, if she doesnât actually have a problem with him being an addict, as she claims in 2x12. She has spent ten months internalizing her feelings of being an outsider and places the blame for that at Langdonâs feet, which is an unreasonable emotional reaction; it is also understandable, because she is human and humans are flawed. But she has a responsibility to herself and others to learn how to emotionally regulate herself, at the very least at work. I believe she would be much happier if she were to go to therapy and learn skills for coping with self-hating thoughts, self-destructive behaviors, and learning how to hold herself accountable for her actions without condemning herself emotionally. She sees things very black and white, but nothing is only black or white in life.
fucking love the pitt. they let the autistic girl chill with a dog fo a bit then her boss came in like "fucking love u girl my least troublesome intern wanna pick sooo much gravel out a dudes leg wound?" and she was just like đđđ incredible. banger autistic rep shes so me.
i think one of the most important messages of the pitt is that everyone deserves help. we see this in a very literal way, especially with the patients this season. over and over, these doctors fight with everything they have to save patients who "put themselves" in that situation. patients who pool meds as a family and take random pills, who make themselves sick at hot dog eating competitions, who overdose on turmeric because an influencer told them to, who refuse medical care during pregnancy to have a "wild birth," who drink themselves to death, who jump off ladders with the hope of dying. on a selfish level, it would be easy for someone to look at those people without empathy. to work to save people like roxie, the "innocent" patients who did everything the right way. but, no, everyone deserves help. everyone deserves empathy. everyone deserves to be saved.
historic moment for the emmys! regardless of your feelings about the nominees, sepideh moafi is the first persian woman in history to be nominated for the role of best supporting actress in a drama series! thatâs a long-overdue milestone that iâm thrilled to see achieved
correction: best supporting actress in a drama series! but not the first persian woman to be nominated for (or win) an emmy! as always, we stand on the shoulders of others. namely, Shohreh Aghdashloo, as has been pointed out to me!
Saying with your whole chest âwhat did Langdon even do this season outside of the argument with Santos?!?â like yâall werenât writing think pieces breaking down his every scene on a weekly basis and talking about how heâs evil and how he deserves prison, is genuinely hilarious.
he stayed relevant and lived rent free in antis minds for 15 weeks straight and I think thatâs beautiful
areudirty
snowghoul
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
discoholicmusic
