This certainly goes beyond the scope of "The Tyrant" and subsequent episodes (I did not see most of them after "The Tyrant"). There is indeed an ethical norm where doctors qua doctors should focus on treating patients as opposing to inflicting harm or terminating their lives. This is why it is taboo for doctors and nurses to participate in lethal injection (which is usually performed by medical technicians) since they do not want to be the instruments for instituting the punishment of the statement. (This reluctance is more concerned with the role of doctors as opposed to the humane treatment of condemned prisoners; even lethal injection itself is controversial, outside of whether the termination of life is morally justified, since it can conceal the suffering of the inmate due to the paralytic agent used.) However, there is also a conflict in the show where House and Wilson attend a medical conference, and House prudently advises against Wilson from delivering a speech endorse euthanasia (to prevent extreme suffering and disability) and it even contained a personal account where he passively euthanized a patient as it would damage his reputation. House incapacitated Wilson, and he delivered the speech under an assumed identity (and the audience is sympathetic to his message), which House justified this action because it allows Wilson to convey his thoughts about euthanasia without the professional stigma it may incur to his reputation. Furthermore, Thirteen euthanized her brother in order to keep a promise to him to shorten his suffering in the terminal stage of Huntington's disease. The writers present the issue of euthanasia with moral ambiguity as Wilson and Thirteen are portrayed sympathetically and not seen as moral pariahs, and they give the impression that euthanasia can be reasonably justified simply because it can prevent excruciating suffering. Ironically, House was the moral pariah because of his indifference to Thirteen's emotions but her performance of that harrowing deed. Indeed, a key motif in the show is to often dramatically portray the escalation of the case with novel (often unexpected) symptoms such as extreme pain or disability such as blindness or paralysis, and the view most certainly does not want to experience what the patient is experiencing. Where treatment is not possible and death is inevitable, euthanasia apparently can be justified in contravention to traditional medical ethics.
I would say that Chase was acting as an independent moral agent outside the context of medical ethics and setting of a hospital (or direction of an intelligence agency to terminate an opposing political leader). He simply portrays himself as a humanitarian hero by intervening in a critical juncture in history and capitalizing on an opportunity presented to him because of his position as a doctor (although he had to act out of the role prescribed of a doctor) because it cannot be justified in any way by conventional medical ethics or even legally. To break the forth wall, one can say that the insertion of the guy who participate in the rape of that woman from a minority tribe is to give a specific context, affect, and personal account to Dibala's crimes against humanity since simply remarking that he killed hundreds of thousands of people would not elicit such sentiments. This is the writer's means of showing and not merely telling the viewers that Dibala is bloodthirsty autocrat. Chase may still kill Dibala if he had not met that man (which I argue before was simply put there because the writers wanted a means of highlighting Dibala's influence on his country). However, it also seems that Chase was distressed when he met that person and this influenced him to kill Dibala (and he wouldn't have if Dibala's atrocities were just depersonalized statistics), so in a way, Chase's feelings is what led him to kill Dibala. Alternatively, one can say Chase's morality transcends conventional medical ethics and legal and religious codes (as opposed to acting on personal feelings).
You are quite perceptive to note that I implicitly decouple subjective feelings and morality. I indeed take a modern approach to moral philosophy, being heavily influenced by Hume and Singer, as the latter often detaches himself from personal feelings, biases, and attachments as they can obscure one's objective assessment of ethical decisions (which are the consequences of one's actions and how they affect other persons' interests). For Hume, one's sentiments and emotions are the primary foundation of morality, since they are the main arbiter of whether a given action would lead to approbation or disapproval. One's intellect only can lead one to uncover experiences, circumstances, and events that evoke the sentiments of disgust, praise, or indifference not discover impalpable moral truths. In case of Singer's preference utilitarianism, one's intellect and knowledge would lead to a more accurate prediction of the consequences of certain actions and judgment of the preferences of those potentially affected by a given action. Such intellect is indispensable because utilitarianism is consequentialist, and one would need a means to predict the consequences of a given course of action. Hume contends that there is nothing inherent in the relationship of ideas about experiences and a moral property that prescribes what ought to be. This not only moral thesis, but also an epistemological one too. We may experience something painful and deem it wrong to inflict similar pain to others because of a strong inherent sense of reciprocity as normally we are quite averse to inflicting pain to others because we do not want others to do likewise to us.
One's feelings can certainly be influenced by one's previous experiences, whether they are raised in a "materialistic", "consumerist" society or in a more insular, conservative environment, or it can be the product of an adaptive "moral" module influenced by Darwinian evolution to prevent free-riders from consuming the resources of the group and members from defecting to other tribes or something absolute transcendent such as God indelibly writing His law in our hearts. (Some apologists argue that only by acknowledging the later, one can have a strong edifice to base morality on beyond narrow self-interest.) But Chase's actions were certainly influenced by something outside of the culture of medicine
===
About autism: given that I am one, I would say that they generally want to be regarded as capable people who can make a significant contribute to society and do not want to be dismissed. However, we also do not want others to downplay the non-trival issues we may deal with, particularly if they may handicap us in making a living. This is the line of political correctness or general propriety one must adhere to when talking about autism (or any other mental disorder), and I did not violate that when talking positively about Masters. Masters' character highlights the quirks of autism endearingly (and that is why I like her) even while ignoring most of the challenges. Yes, autism is not about nerdiness and intellectual interests, but this only manifests in a subset of autistics
===
Edit: 420th post...
