E.R. television show OK for kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain_America
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Captain_America

Guest
We’re a TV free family (and its a blessing).

One son’s interested in the medical field and we wondered if E.R., the TV show, was suitable for kids.

Or does it get into lotsa sex and violence?
 
We’re a TV free family (and its a blessing).

One son’s interested in the medical field and we wondered if E.R., the TV show, was suitable for kids.

Or does it get into lotsa sex and violence?
How old is he?

I used to enjoy the show, but many of the medical procedures are pretty realistic looking and graphic.

I don’t remember many sex scenes, but there were relationships with premarital sex and some characters were promiscuous.
 
We’re a TV free family (and its a blessing).

One son’s interested in the medical field and we wondered if E.R., the TV show, was suitable for kids.

Or does it get into lotsa sex and violence?
If you’re talking about the long running series ER which starred Noah Wyle, Anthony Edwards, etc… you might want to watch a few episodes yourself first. If you think your kid can handle it, go for it. My mom let me watch it when I was 12 with her.

But it does have violence, the occasional sex, etc… It’s set in the ER of a hospital, and as a brother to a former inner city ER nurse, I can tell you that the ER can be a very colorful. This show, being a drama, ramps that up for effect and such.
 
I let my daughter watch ER when she was quite young. She was just fascinated by it and my other daughter had no interest. She’s getting ready to attend medical school next year!~LOL, I think she just had an innate interest in medical stuff.

I would consider the child for it can be graphic medically speaking and there are of course romantic relationships on the show.

Mary.
 
We’re a TV free family (and its a blessing).

One son’s interested in the medical field and we wondered if E.R., the TV show, was suitable for kids.

Or does it get into lotsa sex and violence?
Violence - lots of bullet wounds coming in, altercations in the halls sometimes (fistfights), but at least one episode featured an active shooter in the ER. Oh and one of the doctors is assaulted and left injured in the bathroom once which is alluded to in more episodes.

MANY scenes of promiscuous behavior - esp. earlier episodes with Clooney in them as he’s a doctor with a rep for sleeping around. Mostly flirting and people shown lying under covers together / waking up at each other’s places (Not much nudity as such or passionate caresses that I remember).

The on going, constant theme of sleeping with others / dating=sex would make me say it’s definitely a PG-13 level show for my parenting style … and a “no” for those of my kids who’d really get into the main characters simply because of the constant flirt/sex/divorce/playing the field, etc. type of lifestyles. For those more action orientated - aka the medical stuff / patient stories - it would be fine for more mature teens, imho.
 
Just from personal experience…

My grandpa and grandma visited us from New Jersey when my sister and I were were young. My grandma was the best and on their first night they asked if they could watch E.R. Our family had never watched it and they told my parents it would be okay. This was in like 1996 or 97. I’ll never forget it: it was an episode about a snowstorm and a freeway pileup and they get a ton of patients. One guy comes in with his hand bandaged and says ‘My finger got cut off.’ They start attending to him and ask where it is and he holds up a Ziploc bag with his bloody finger and says ‘right here.’ It was about that point I started going white and when the really bloody patients started arriving my parents asked them to turn it off. Luckily my grandparents saw me and turned it off right then and there.

Long story, but apart from sexual themes or whatever, it is a very graphic show.
 
If you don’t mind your kid watching tons of sex scenes which are made to look like casual sex is fun safe and normal, especially among those we consider to be a part of one of the most respected fields of work in society… then sure, its a great kids show.
 
If you don’t mind your kid watching tons of sex scenes which are made to look like casual sex is fun safe and normal, especially among those we consider to be a part of one of the most respected fields of work in society… then sure, its a great kids show.
That’s it. Let us (producers and writers) create a show where “one of the most respected fields of work in society” shows everybody that “casual sex is fun safe and normal.”

No way. Not suitable for the young who are more impressionable, have very little ‘real world’ experience and who might assume the above is true. Bad examples are bad examples.

Ed
 
It’s a soap opera with very little reality of how a hospital or the medical profession works.
 
It’s a soap opera with very little reality of how a hospital or the medical profession works.
Actually, as far as medical shows go, ER is one of the most realistic that I’ve seen. I’m a registered nurse in one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, and I can relate to a lot of the medical procedures/shift workflow/patient concerns that the show portrays, even though it was made in the 1990’s.

However, I do think that it is a show that I would only let teenagers and older watch due to the graphic and realistic portrayals of medicine and also the sexual content.
 
Actually, as far as medical shows go, ER is one of the most realistic that I’ve seen. I’m a registered nurse in one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, and I can relate to a lot of the medical procedures/shift workflow/patient concerns that the show portrays, even though it was made in the 1990’s.

However, I do think that it is a show that I would only let teenagers and older watch due to the graphic and realistic portrayals of medicine and also the sexual content.
Well, I disagree. I understand though the idea of confirmation bias when you like a show. I’ll fight to the death to tell you how realistic the sopranos was!!!

But honestly regardless of how well they paid thier consultants so they could have the right terminology it’s still just a soap opera. ER probably more so than any other.
 
Well, I disagree. I understand though the idea of confirmation bias when you like a show. I’ll fight to the death to tell you how realistic the sopranos was!!!

But honestly regardless of how well they paid thier consultants so they could have the right terminology it’s still just a soap opera. ER probably more so than any other.
I wouldn’t say it’s just confirmation bias. I’ll be the first to admit that there are things which are inaccurate, such as doctors performing tasks which nurses normally do, or the infamous helicopter crash scene that kills one of the doctors. However, I do think it is somewhat more accurate than some medical shows I’ve seen such as Grey’s Anatomy.

We can agree to disagree 🙂 I won’t argue with the Sopranos! 😉
 
I wouldn’t say it’s just confirmation bias. I’ll be the first to admit that there are things which are inaccurate, such as doctors performing tasks which nurses normally do, or the infamous helicopter crash scene that kills one of the doctors. However, I do think it is somewhat more accurate than some medical shows I’ve seen such as Grey’s Anatomy.

We can agree to disagree 🙂 I won’t argue with the Sopranos! 😉
I actually thought House was good. Totally made up from an HR standpoint but the med stuff seemed kosher. As did some of the administrative stuff. At least more believable as Clooney as a doctor…

Greys was HORRIBLE! Scrubs had more credibility!
 
All of this to say for a family that doesn’t have tv, and is concerned about what is appropriate for kids, nope. ER is a bad fit!
 
Thanks folks. I think we’ll take a pass.

This kind of leads to a dilemma.

If my kid is 13, and the sight of seeing Darth Vader blow up Princess Leia’s planet causes distress. . . have we been overdoing it with the protection of innocence?
 
Thanks folks. I think we’ll take a pass.

This kind of leads to a dilemma.

If my kid is 13, and the sight of seeing Darth Vader blow up Princess Leia’s planet causes distress. . . have we been overdoing it with the protection of innocence?
Children need to be children. They should not be thrust into a media world that has increasingly, over the years, gotten more graphic and more sexualized. Not to mention the profanity. Even with ‘sex education’ in schools, the CDC is telling us we have an STD epidemic going on. As they grow into adulthood, young people need age appropriate knowledge and exposure to good role models.

There’s a difference between seeing a massive spacecraft which doesn’t exist blowing up a planet, which is fantasy, and kids seeing behaviors that they can imitate in real life, bad and good.

Ed
 
Thanks folks. I think we’ll take a pass.

This kind of leads to a dilemma.

If my kid is 13, and the sight of seeing Darth Vader blow up Princess Leia’s planet causes distress. . . have we been overdoing it with the protection of innocence?
That’s a whole other can of worms. :o

I definitely veer more towards over-protecting than under-protecting. Although my 10 year old daughter has now seen the first 6 Star Wars movies (and wasn’t traumatized—not even by Jar Jar :p), that has only been a recent development. She also watched the two National Treasure movies. Those are, so far, the only PG movies she has seen (with Episode III being the lone PG-13 film).

I think it depends on the kid, too. Some kids are more sensitive to those things, and that’s okay. Personally, I’d see the fact that your child experiences sorrow at the thought of a planet full of innocent people being destroyed as a moral victory as a parent. :o

It’s a delicate walk, to be sure. Our children will encounter some of these things eventually, so we cannot pretend they don’t exist. But we can also—in an age appropriate way—let them know about the existence of such things without showing it to them. And then encourage them to make good choices.
 
Thanks folks. I think we’ll take a pass.

This kind of leads to a dilemma.

If my kid is 13, and the sight of seeing Darth Vader blow up Princess Leia’s planet causes distress. . . have we been overdoing it with the protection of innocence?
Define distress?
 
That’s a whole other can of worms. :o

I definitely veer more towards over-protecting than under-protecting. Although my 10 year old daughter has now seen the first 6 Star Wars movies (and wasn’t traumatized—not even by Jar Jar :p), that has only been a recent development. She also watched the two National Treasure movies. Those are, so far, the only PG movies she has seen (with Episode III being the lone PG-13 film).

I think it depends on the kid, too. Some kids are more sensitive to those things, and that’s okay. Personally, I’d see the fact that your child experiences sorrow at the thought of a planet full of innocent people being destroyed as a moral victory as a parent. :o

It’s a delicate walk, to be sure. Our children will encounter some of these things eventually, so we cannot pretend they don’t exist. But we can also—in an age appropriate way—let them know about the existence of such things without showing it to them. And then encourage them to make good choices.
I agree. I would rather have a kid who is sensitive to violence than one who is numb to it.

Gentle exposure over time as I got older was how my parents handled me. The first thing I remember being allowed to watch which was higher than a PG rating was Lord of the Rings. They took the time to prep me ahead of viewing and also to talk it over after watching. The nice thing about movies like LOTR or Star Wars is that it does show some distressing things such as violence, but it is absolutely clear that there is an overarching theme of good vs evil.

I am still soft-hearted, but I am able to process the realities of the world without viewing them as acceptable behavior.
 
I agree. I would rather have a kid who is sensitive to violence than one who is numb to it.

Gentle exposure over time as I got older was how my parents handled me. The first thing I remember being allowed to watch which was higher than a PG rating was Lord of the Rings. They took the time to prep me ahead of viewing and also to talk it over after watching. The nice thing about movies like LOTR or Star Wars is that it does show some distressing things such as violence, but it is absolutely clear that there is an overarching theme of good vs evil.

I am still soft-hearted, but I am able to process the realities of the world without viewing them as acceptable behavior.
“soft-hearted” is how we should be. However, we can sometimes trust the wrong people or believe something that is bad is good because someone in authority said so. We need to lean on our Catholic teaching and doctrines to navigate the world. To see more clearly how to separate the true from the false.

My mother told me as I grew up that she would answer certain questions I had “when I was a little older.” This was common knowledge. As a boy turns into a young man and begins to have more “real world” experience, he needs guidance. To help prepare him and to help him avoid mistakes.

Being sensitive as opposed to numb means one develops compassion and empathy towards others and automatically rejects all the bad that is out there, or is at least wary and on guard. As I went through life, it pained me whenever some new bad thing was presented as good or acceptable or “no big deal.” That meant I rejected certain places and behaviors and other things as best as I was able. I was not perfect but I felt the sting and grief when something bad was announced as being good or average or common and without any consequences when it was clear that was not true. I thank God for His guidance.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top