Back in the lecture hall, House taps his cane on the floor and says, as all the Cottages watch from the back row, that the MRI showed that the druggie had an aneurysm that clotted, causing an infarction the restricted the blood flow to his leg, killing the muscle. "You were right," Foreman mutters to Cameron. "It was House." And first of all, you know that Cameron totally rushed into the Cottages' office just bursting with the news that their boss is giving a lecture right now all about his personal life that he obviously would have rather kept from them, so they should all go down there and soak up all the juicy details. And second, there's some question here over whether House was a drug addict before the leg problem, or if he simply described his story-self as such because that was the assumption that clouded his original doctors' ability to diagnose him properly. There's also the question of how long House has actually worked for the hospital, since this is supposed to take place five years ago and, in the first episode, Cuddy said that House had been avoiding Clinic duty for six years. Yet here, she doesn't appear to have a pre-established relationship with House, and looks like it was her guilt over what her hospital did to him that made her offer his current job to him and also lets him slide on all those questionable ethical things and the inappropriate stuff he says to her. But most importantly, where does this put the Cuddy-House relationship that I'm sure happened on the timeline, since I would have placed it as coming before Stacy, but obviously after they started working together. So many questions, and I don't have any answers. The individual viewer has to make his own decision here, which I think makes for some of the best stories out there, be they literature, film, or a show on Fox.
When we cut back to the druggie, he is no longer the random middle-aged guy, but House. Cuddy says he'll have to have the dead muscle tissue surgically removed, and the whole leg might also have to go. With Stacy at his side, House says he likes his leg. No one is cutting it off.
LectureHouse insists that the patient's choice was correct; surgeons are only too happy to save some work and time and chop limbs off if given the option. StudentForeman Foremans that that is a load of bull. House explains that when you maximize the amount of tissue you save, you also maximize the chances that something will go wrong. We can apply this to actual tissue and the money-conscious cold victim, whose zeal to conserve Kleenex ups the risk that his runny nose drippings will get on his clothes.