I caught it. It's one of maybe four TV shows my wife and I ever watch, along with Medium, Fear Factor (we need stupid TV to unwind) and Friends reruns.
(She also watches two CBS soaps and I'll clue in enough to follow along, but don't pay that much attention to them so I'm not counting it here....)
I guess I'm not as up as I probably should be on "natural" valve replacment options, that is opposed to artificial metal and plastic valves like what I have, but I wasn't bothered too much with their story line, if only because they've got to use at least a LITTLE dramatic license to move the story along.
It poses an interesting (if not far fetched) question though. If you have an "aversion" to using a particular form of prosthetic for a neccesary, life saving procedure simply based on the prosthetic's composition (animal, bovine/pig/cadaver/etc vs plastic) what would you do?
I don't think the "restrictiveness" of anticoagulation therapy was really serious enough to make such a fuss over, but again, dramatic license. The story needed a dramatic element, a conflict or antagonist that serves to drive the story. That was it.
Perhaps they could have done a more thorough research job and set up circumstances where a pigs valve would be the ideal choice but undesirable because of the patient's religious beliefs....
Is there ever a circumstance where you couldn't possibly use an artificial valve but could still use something biological???
Both that and Medium's finale have us hanging at the edge of our seats just a little bit. =)