I actually found the discussion surrounding the Patient of the Week kind of fascinating, but maybe that's just me.
FOX.com has a basic recap here.
I think one of the reasons why House manages to hold onto its decent ratings share - aside from Hugh Laurie's star power and the snappy dialogue - is that Shore and Co. usually make a genuine effort to include multiple perspectives on any one issue -- and this episode is a good example of their approach. Here, the writer - Sara Hess in this case - asks, "What defines a 'good' person?" and then basically leaves the answer up to us. 'Tis true that House makes his opinion pretty clear, but that's House -- and I don't get the impression that Hess wishes House's viewpoint to be the final word on the subject.
So what does define a "good" person? I think my own perspective falls somewhere between House's red-in-tooth-and-claw approach to the universe and Adams' starry-eyed leftism. I don't think giving away most of one's wealth is automatically a sign of organic illness; after all, many of the saints who are revered in the Catholic Church did precisely that. At the same time, I thought the PotW was an insufferable ass mainly because he was imposing his lifestyle on his wife and children without their consent. Charity should be extended in freedom and with a loving heart; it shouldn't be offered out of guilt or forced by government fiat.
Because this script doesn't really move House forward, I can't give it too high a score. It is pretty solid, though.
The acting's not bad either. I'm not sure I'm personally in the "Yay for Yi!" camp yet - I haven't always been happy with her line delivery - but I'm certainly willing to give her a chance, as she's different and consequently interesting.
This episode earns a B on the message for being thought-provoking. See the discussion above.