Up 528 this week

Damaged Care (2002)

TV Movie  -   -  Drama  -  26 May 2002 (USA)
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 6.1/10 from 228 users  
Reviews: 8 user | 3 critic

Add a Plot



0Check in

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

list image
a list of 9 titles
created 29 Aug 2011
a list of 340 titles
created 22 Nov 2011
a list of 8 titles
created 10 May 2012
a list of 3690 titles
created 15 Jan 2013
a list of 111 titles
created 9 months ago

Connect with IMDb

Share this Rating

Title: Damaged Care (TV Movie 2002)

Damaged Care (TV Movie 2002) on IMDb 6.1/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of Damaged Care.




Cast overview, first billed only:
Linda Peeno
Doug Peeno (as James LeGros)
Cheryl Griffith
Dawn Dubose
Dr. Avery Principle
Bryanna (15-20 years)
Gemma Coombs
David Parker ...
Ted Leopold
Dr. Sam Verbush
Robert Wisden ...
Andrew McCullough
Paul Sheinberg
Craig J. Trigoboff
Larry Musser ...
Glenn J. Waldman
Bryan Peeno
Tasha Peeno


Add Full Plot | Add Synopsis



Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated PG for thematic elements and brief language | See all certifications »




Release Date:

26 May 2002 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

Damaged Care  »

Filming Locations:

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


Sound Mix:


See  »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

This movie Concentrates Too Much Fire-Power on HMOs
20 October 2005 | by (Canada) – See all my reviews

A pivotal point of this movie which raised my ire was when a self-righteous transplant surgeon accused the HMO of committing "murder" by its refusal to bankroll a one-million dollar heart transplant procedure. Suppose the HMO officer had countered by saying: "O.K., we'll put up half the money if your team at the hospital hospital agrees to do the procedure for half price"; hopefully that would have given the doctor pause for thought - I suspect in most cases the outraged retort might have been something like "no way! we're running a hospital not a charity!" The crux of the matter is that the progress of medical science has made it technically possible to treat more and more formerly fatal conditions, but it has not made it affordable in most cases. Is any health care provider morally obligated to treat a patient regardless of cost or patient circumstances - even if it deprives other patients of the care they need? Some years ago, the British National Heath Service was excoriated by the tabloid press for refusing to finance a second bone marrow transplant for a young cancer patient whose first transplant had failed. The NHS management team replied that there was about zero chance of another transplant saving the girl's life and what right did they have to spend another million pounds on just one patient and deprive thousands of other patients the care they needed. Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of good for society or humanity - sometimes summarized as "The greatest good for the greatest number." All health care professionals should remember this principle; there isn't ever going to be enough cash available to do everything you would wish to do. Medical ethics become comparatively simpler in an emergency situation, e.g. a war zone or terrorism situation - doctors use the triage system, i.e. separate the wounded into three groups: (a) the seriously wounded who can be helped with the resources available (b) those with slight wounds who will survive anyway without treatment (c) those so badly injured they will inevitably die even if treated. Start with group (a), continue with group (b) if resources permit, leave group (c) to die.

1 of 9 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
Daughter? ohjulie
Anatomy Teacher GreenFalcon08
Discuss Damaged Care (2002) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: