I agree with what Chase did. I would do it too, though I am not sure I would be brave enough to bear the consequences of my actions. I'd probably run away straight after.... But I guess it really comes down to whether one thinks it can ever be 'right' to kill another human being. My guess is most people would think in absolute terms and say that no, it is never right, no matter what the circumstances, but me... I am not so sure. I think in some cases refusing to kill someone 'on principle' could be considered a cop-out, or even a selfish decision.

They're dealing with the meaning of life itself: is it worth to save a person who's about to kill thousands? Is his life as deserving as other people's, just because he is a patient, and so you, doctor, MUST treat him? This is not so easy an answer, at least for me... If I had given a chance to shoot Hitler just before he called the Final Decision in the middle of WW2, would I have pulled the trigger? I think yes, and I'm with Chase, but this DOESN'T set my mind to peace. Not at all. I would probably be sitting right in the middle of the locker room as Chase, hitting my head against the wall, I would be in trouble with my decision.
I liked this thing. The ep was focused on people who made decisions: the tyrant, Foreman, Cam, Chase... There's no peace of mind when you have decided. You have just closed a door and opened another one and this is forever: although you might think you made the right one, as Foreman did with 13, soon or later you have to pay for it, because nothing is without any consequence, neither Foreman firing 13 to "save" the relationship, nor Chase faking the blood samples.
It's all about carrying with yourself the load of your decisions, as the tyrant does.

Wow, I like your thoughts aleramp, but that just raises another question for me: why not be at peace with the fact that some lives are less deserving than others? Why not be at peace with killing HItler? What makes us so troubled about choosing something that instinctively makes so much sense? (I don't mean to come through as a psychopath here - I probably would be just as troubled as anybody else -I am just curious about what goes on in people's minds).

The episode made me very sad. Being from Jewish origins I can imagine that killing a tyrant is not a crime, but what I read on different forums about "The Tyrant" and the following "Instant Karma" is creepy! People wish Chase dead or at leat suffering a lifetime for what he did (and I'm not even sure whether Cameron was the driving force here and Chase covering up for her - so far there is no proof that Chase was the one who killed the man but his words - and isn't everybody lying?), and IMO, people who react that harshly on a character of a tv-show are dangerous and more tyrants and judges than they'd admit. I feel sorry for Chase and I hope it turns out all for the best to him.
And even though Cameron is not my favourite, I could understand her feelings towards the tyrant (I still suspect her to be the one who acted)...

I know it is a delicate subject, and very morally debatable. But to me it always comes back to this question: if you had the opportunity to stop Hitler, wouldn't you take it? So I have to say that I'm with Chase on this one.

I was with Cameron from the start in not approving of treating the guy, I would have had the very same opinion instantly. But Cameron did treat, and I agree with what both House and then the 'tyrant' (can't remember a name for the life of me) said to her, that if she disagreed with the tyrant's actions and didn't think he should live, she should have done something about it, not just grudgingly and resentfully do what others told her to do. Having opinions is great and healthy, but there has to be a point where you start taking real actions, otherwise opinions end up being pretty useless.

Chase in the beginning didn't mind treating the guy, wasn't interested in getting involved in the ethical dilemma, pretty much like he always does, he usually likes staying away from that stuff. But, as the story kept going, he got slapped in the face by the reality of the situation and it pushed him outside his beautifully protected bubble. Chase was forced to admit to himself that the guy was actually a tyrant, that he was actually going to commit genocide and no one would be able to (legally) stop that. He was pushed out of his comfortable life to meet crude harsh reality face to face, and he had a choice to make.

For himself, it would have been easier to either treat or to decide not to treat and peacefully step aside. Is there really THAT much of a difference between those two? If you don't do the job of treating the guy, you can bet your life that, for the right ammount of money, the tyrant would have been perfectly able to find someone to finish the job. You sleep better at night, which is good, but for everyone else it means (not nothing but) very little.

Chase settled for an opinion, decided to act upon it and took the matter on his own hands, with the risk of going to jail and the even bigger risk of never sleeping peacefully again. But I'm with him, he made a difficult deciscion which is the one that I think (or I like to think) I would have made.
Chase finally proved he has some major balls. <3

I think Chase was in an impossible situation because he saved Dibala's life, and after Dibala reveals that he does in fact mean to commit genocide to "protect his country".Chase felt responsible for the death of those people.

He certainly did a bad thing, but I can understand why he did what he did.

And as Edmund Burke said: All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing...