Like an obligatory, naked, unguided never ending tour to the nineth circle of Dante Alighieri's Inferno, these incendiary accusations strip Lewis of all innocence, forcing him to nonviolently confront himself, his accusers, and others. He agonizingly introspects broadly, with an intensity, and a silent solitary dignity few know, giving birth to The Doctor's Dilemma.

Far from these haunting Chicago tragedies, but always sensitive and respectful to all victims, The Doctor's Dilemma finds its motivation in another tragic era, probing different cultures inhabited by a vastly different suffering cast. Charles Rivers, M.D., the protagonist finds himself jogging at dawn in central India, instantly surrounded by the stench of bloated corpses and the cries of living hords. Bodies, the walking dead, and the living are everwhere, the mass casualties in Bhopal, India, where in December, 1984, a deadly gas shroud silently creeps over the sleeping city, killing 8 to 10-thousand people within 72 hours.

While navigating this vast sea of slaughtered innocents, Dr. Rivers loses his adopted Indian family, his best friend and his worldly innocence. Seized by pain and anger, disgust and dispair, Rivers becomes a manic, supercharged force for good, using his powers against untouchable and ruthless, wealthy and poweful executives of environment poisoning, people-killing corporations.

When at the peak of his fame, Rivers discovers that his own father, decades earlier in total ignorace, accepts bribes for helping thugs dump poisons in the drinking water acquifers where the doctor grew up. This money gives the doctor a cushy childhood, and pays for his education. A gemeration llater, these leeching poisons kill his father, his friends, little children and neighbors, as if a cruel echo of the Bhopal tragedy.

In the seventies, many dump household trash down deep abandoned mineshafts as casually as burying their dead six feet under. Burying problems is the prefered solution. It is an age of an innocence born of ignorance, before ordinary people know about fragile environmental hazards, before they know how toxins flow underground, making drinking water deadly.

The doctor now faces a dilemma. Is he ethically bound to blow the whistle on his own dying father, thereby destroying his own career, or does the the doctor do something else?