randiritt

I was utterly engrossed in this story. But the third episode, during which Dr. Macchiarini is publicly discovered as a fraud in his professional and personal life, ends abruptly and without answering most of the questions the documentary raises. Did the filmmakers run out of money, interest or time? They spent endless hours interviewing Benita Alexander and telling every detail of her personal story. They were conscientious about giving time to his peers at the Karolinksa Institute who risked their careers and reputations, and the Swedish documentarians who researched the story methodically for over a year. So then, why do they give the viewer a "wrap-up" that is neither expository nor analytical? They give us a few black screens with an epilogue that only focuses on Dr. Macchiarini's subsequent court cases in Sweden. While the results are initially disappointing (subsequent appeals make them seem more just...maybe), the viewer is sidestep giving the viewer any resolution that reflects the material presented throughout the documentary. The problem with the documentary is that Dr. Macchiarini's story, specifically the damage he did to his patients and the complicity of the medical establishment, was NOT the focus of the documentary as it should have been. He committed crimes. He was a reckless and narcissistic doctor who broke myriad rules in medicine. The tragedy of this story should have been his professional hubris and the danger that "superstardom" in medicine creates. Honestly, the documentary's focus on the women - their "shattered" lives - was a poor choice. Was it for ratings? There was certainly enough medical intrigue that the jilted lover angle wasn't necessary. And, indeed, the amount of time spent on the personal relationships angle of the documentary should have, at least for consistency, given a recap of all the individual women who were duped. I could imagine them considering a reality TV style "tell all" show. Thankfully, they did not do that. But they also failed to give the viewer something that resolved all the troubling questions they touch upon throughout the documentary when they do focus on his professional work. I found myself craving a table that listed every statement or assertion about him with a "true or not". For example, related to important medical issues, did Dr. M. have all the accreditations he said he did? Did anyone find animal research that preceded the implants in humans? What is the backstory of the development of the plastic trachea? Who signed off on it and where? Were they prosecuted? Is he still working somewhere? I realize not all of these are True/False questions but they should have been answered if the documentary makers were even remotely interested in exposing a medical charlatan. I think the documentary makers had an obligation (given the Netflix hype and surprisingly positive reviews) to deliver on more facts to complete the story.