The Defenders (TV Series) The Quality of Mercy (1961) User Reviews

Cross of expert witness

[jgallanis · 7/10 · 13 July 2022]

"Can a Mongoloid be educated??!?"

Ouch. I've never been accused of political correctness, and I do make allowances for the fact that this is 1961, but I cannot imagine an educated lawyer (as E. G. Marshall's character is portrayed as being) asking such a ignorant and ham fisted question.

A prime example of how what's considered 'right' and 'enlightened' on TV does change with time.

[rbecker28 · 3/10 · 14 July 2016]

The very first episode of this highly acclaimed series concerns a doctor who is accused of....make that admits to...killing an infant with Down's Syndrome out of a sense of mercy. The doctor is portrayed as a man of deep compassion; the father of the child agrees with his act and even gave him the go-ahead, essentially. The Prestons, the show's father-and-son team of attorneys, agree to take the case.

It is highly unlikely that this episode would be made today, considering how the knowledge of and attitude toward Down's Syndrome has changed since 1961 when this aired. Although the chromosomal basis for Down's as due to trisomy for chromosome 21 had in fact been discovered two years earlier, it appears the writers of this episode knew nothing about it, as a fellow doctor testifies that the cause is still unknown. That may not be unusual; news about new medical discoveries did travel slow then, especially in getting from the medical journals to Hollywood. Still, it seems that the writers were a bit too confident in their assessment of the condition considering the ever-changing nature of medical knowledge and treatments. The 'expert witness' doctor also says that Down's children cannot be educated. Today, we have already had shows like 'Life Goes On' which portrayed a character with Down's, who was portrayed by a real-life actor with the condition, who was quite capable of being educated even if not quite to the extent of everyone else.

Today, if a similar episode were made, the condition would not be Down's but perhaps Trisomy 13 or 18, both of which are much, much more severe and life-shortening. But I've even read of exceptions in these conditions---who knows what the future may tell us? But the point is, this was considered to be an enlightened, compassionate, progressive episode at the time. After 55 years, it does not seem so anymore.

The point is, when writers want to be moralistic, enlightened, compassionate, or progressive, they also need to be a bit more humble and admit to the nuances, as it is always possible that the future will hold their position to have been wrong.

I just received The Defenders on DVD. I fully intend to collect all four seasons if they are put out and watch them all. And I would encourage people offended by this first episode (as I imagine many will be) to not judge the series by this one alone. The show is regarded as a landmark and explores many other questions throughout its run, and I hope people give it a chance. Please do so. I do expect to see more nuance in its treatment of issues in later episodes. Still, this first episode serves as an example of how we all, writers included, have to have a bit more humility in our readiness to declare enlightenment.

A terrible beginning to a great show

[schappe1 · 1/10 · 13 September 2016]

Like so many viewers who remember it, I've been waiting for years for The Defenders to come out on DVD. The first season is finally out, (and will hopefully be popular enough that they will release the other three seasons of this seminal show).

After all this wait, watching the premiere episode was a disappointment to say the least. A doctor delivers a "Mongoloid" baby and decides on his own to euthanize the child because he believes that the child's life would not be worth living and that it would provide too much heartbreak for the parents. The Prestons agree to defend the doctor. Lawrence disagrees with what he did but agrees to represent him anyway. Kenneth totally agrees with what he did and is angry he's on trial at all.

The term "Mongoloid" is short for "Mongoloid Idiot", which was applied to what we now call Down Syndrome in the 19th century because its victims seemed to have some "oriental" looking characteristics. The term was on its way out in 1961, (see the Wikipedia article on "Mongoloid idiot"), because by then people realized it was insulting both to Mongolians and also to people with Down's Syndrome. Yet it is used freely here. It's noted in the episode that children with Down's Syndrome die early but are the recipients of more love, especially from the mother, than normal children and the DA, (Jack Klugman) had a brother with that problem who he loved very much. Obviously, such children's lives have value, and their existence isn't necessarily a negative for their parents. We now know much more about the syndrome and the whole premise of the doctor's decision seems even more absurd than it must have then.

But that's not the only problem with the show. Would a doctor throw away his career and maybe even his life, to do this? (He's potentially facing the death penalty). Would he do it without consulting the parents? Phillip Abbott, as the doctor, isn't given much of a chance in the script to explain his actions. Lawrence Preston doesn't spend much time exploring his point of view. The case he presents seems spectacularly weak compared to the case Klugman puts on. Kenneth Preston takes a swing at Klugman in his office and gets a split lip for his trouble, something that is laughed off here but would surely have dire consequences. Then we are treated to some totally irrelevant romantic scenes between Kenneth and his girlfriend, played by Joan Hackett.

A major disappointment from the pen of the great Reginald Rose. Why did they choose to begin the show with this mess?