A Positive Portrayal of a Doctor with Autism, but I Did Not Like Other Aspects

The Good Doctor ran for seven seasons and received critical acclaim. One of the show’s biggest strengths was its portrayal of autism through Dr. Shaun Murphy, a young autistic surgeon who demonstrated that being autistic does not prevent someone from becoming highly skilled and successful in a demanding profession.

Let me start with the positives.

Dr. Shaun Murphy was not portrayed as someone like Raymond “Rain Man” Babbitt, who was primarily defined by one extraordinary ability while being portrayed as below average in most other areas. Shaun was also not portrayed as some kind of psychic who was only useful when detectives needed help solving a mystery. Most importantly, he was not portrayed as someone who needed to be “fixed” or broken down because of his autism.

Instead, he was portrayed as what the title suggests: a good doctor.

Shaun’s autism was an important part of his character, but it was not the only thing that defined him. He had a remarkable ability to visualize things, which helped make him an exceptionally skilled surgeon. At the same time, he could function independently in many areas of his life, even though he experienced noticeable difficulties with communication, social situations, and understanding certain situations.

Freddie Highmore also did a good job portraying Shaun Murphy. Although Highmore is not autistic himself, he brought a lot of dedication and complexity to the role. The character represented a major change in his career. Highmore had previously been known as a child actor through movies such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Arthur and the Invisibles. More than a decade later, The Good Doctor gave him an opportunity to demonstrate his versatility as an adult actor.

Another thing I appreciated was how strongly the show addressed discrimination against autistic people. In the first episode, members of the hospital board were hesitant about hiring Shaun because of his autism. During the board meeting, Dr. Aaron Glassman, Shaun’s longtime mentor, challenged one of the board members by asking what would happen if they refused to hire him because he was Black. When the board member questioned what his race had to do with the situation, Glassman made the comparison even clearer by asking what would happen if they refused to hire another person because she was a woman.

The point was clear: judging someone’s ability to do a job based solely on a disability is discrimination.

I appreciated that message because autistic people, like anyone else, should have the opportunity to demonstrate what they can do rather than being automatically dismissed because of how they communicate or interact with others.

However, there were also several aspects of the show that I did not like.

For one thing, I thought the backstory involving Glassman knowing Shaun as a child in a rural town and becoming involved in his life after Shaun experienced trauma was somewhat overdramatic. I understand why the writers wanted to establish a strong emotional connection between the two characters, but I felt the story could have worked without making Shaun’s childhood trauma such a major part of the setup.

I also found some of the surgery scenes unnecessarily graphic. There were times when the show displayed blood, organs, and surgical procedures in considerable detail. While medical dramas are obviously going to include surgery, not everyone wants to see extremely graphic images while watching television. I would have preferred the show to focus more on the medical story and the characters rather than relying so heavily on graphic surgical imagery.

But the biggest problem I had with the show involved an episode early in the first season.

The episode dealt with a donated liver that needed to reach a patient before it became unusable. The intended recipient was a former alcoholic suffering from liver failure. Without the transplant, he had only a few months to live.

However, shortly before the transplant, the doctors discovered that he had consumed one alcoholic drink a few days earlier at his daughter’s graduation. The transplant rules stated that a patient needed to have been sober for six months before receiving a liver.

The hospital staff debated what to do. What bothered me most was the way the situation was handled. Dr. Glassman, who had been presented as someone willing to challenge discrimination and stand up for people who were treated unfairly, essentially argued that there were valid arguments on both sides.

Ultimately, the liver was given to someone else.

I understand that donated organs are extremely limited and that doctors have to make difficult decisions about who should receive them. I also understand that medical rules exist for reasons and that transplant decisions cannot simply be based on emotions.

However, I strongly disagreed with the message I felt the episode was sending.

This man had struggled with alcoholism, but he had otherwise given up drinking. His one drink occurred at his daughter’s graduation. To me, there is a major difference between someone who has genuinely relapsed into alcoholism and someone who had one drink at an important family event after otherwise maintaining his sobriety.

The show seemed to take a very strict, “the rules are the rules” approach. To me, that was disappointing, especially on a series that had spent so much time arguing that people who are different should not automatically be judged or excluded because they do not fit a particular standard.

I am not saying the other patient was less deserving of the transplant. They were both human beings who needed a lifesaving organ. The problem was the reasoning behind the decision. It felt as though the former alcoholic was being punished for breaking a rule, even though his circumstances deserved more consideration.

That was especially frustrating because the show’s message about autism had been so strongly focused on challenging rigid assumptions and discrimination. In real life, people who are different sometimes need individualized consideration rather than having every situation handled strictly by the book.

After watching that episode, I decided to stop watching The Good Doctor.

Overall, I appreciate what the show accomplished with its portrayal of an autistic doctor. Shaun Murphy was shown as a capable professional rather than simply as a collection of autistic stereotypes. The show also made some important points about discrimination and the importance of giving autistic people opportunities.

At the same time, I felt that some of the show’s other storylines and messages did not live up to the same standard. For me, The Good Doctor demonstrated that a television series can make a positive contribution to autism representation while still having storylines and decisions that I strongly disagree with.