5.16 — “Ethics”

Comments

2 responses to “5.16 — “Ethics””

1. 

   Randi Cohen

   March 10, 2016

   Regarding the medical ethics question… well, in a certain sense this happens all the time (elective surgery) but I don’t think the FDA would allow an elective procedure with 63% chance of death to be approved.  And there isn’t any organized lobby for them to do so, either, that I am aware of.  I just don’t see this mapping to an issue in the real world that is of importance to most people.

   The more interesting issue is whether cultural norms can supersede the importance of sustaining life… a topic tackled much more effectively in “Half a Life”.  I think that one was so much better because the culture was actually shown on-screen and the character was in touch with ambivalence.  Without either of those elements, Worf just comes off like he is a close-minded/self-centered human with face ridges.  

   >> We were asking “where’s Alexander?” long before he finally appeared. Klingons have a curious conception of honor if it means orphaning a child.

   SUPER DUPER AGREE WITH THIS.  LIKE, A MILLION TIMES OVER.

   >> I was taken aback by this exchange between doctors: “That’s what this is really about isn’t it? Lt. Worf!” These lines are literally spoken right over the corpse of the refugee that Dr. Russell failed to save. I think it might also be about that. These characters may have the two worst bedside manners in Starfleet.

   YES.  EXACTLY.  Who on earth wrote this script???

   >> Wouldn’t it have been cool if the guest star was Pulaski, instead of Dr. Russell?

   YES.  Anything to bring back Dr. Pulaski.  She captured the “feel” of being an actual doctor.

   My original reaction is below:

   Hello, how is it possible that so little mention is made of Alexander during this episode??  The one thing that usually keeps suicidally depressed people alive is their children.

   I do appreciate that it tries to be about something.  And that they get to mentioning Alexander eventually.  Still, the fact that it takes so long for anyone to think about him after the injury is boggling.  

   I think they artificially weakened the Crazy Doc’s position in certain ways: having her avoid emotional contact with her patients, having her not try a potentially viable traditional therapy prior to trying an experimental one without consent of the patient (a clear violation of medical ethics), having her make a weak argument about how a patient’s death would “mean something” later rather than that she had given him himself the best chance at life.  

   Also, on a purely scientific note, one would think that perfecting the holographic technique first would be easier than using messy human or Klingon data, but if that were the only issue with this episode I could ignore it.

   I honestly do not know the answer to that question… I would think it would depend on the individual.  That being said, I find it fairly irresponsible of Worf in particular to want to take the risk, given his son has already lost his mother and who the heck is gonna raise this kid if he doesn’t??  I know he’s a Klingon and all and it’s better than ritual suicide, but still, I’m not really impressed with his parenting.  At all.  It is a cute half smile he shares with Alexander when he gives up the knife.  

   Reply
2. 

   Kevin Black

   March 10, 2016

   That’s interesting. I totally agree–if your script has a character taking a far out position which creates the conflict in the episode, you should be looking for all ways possible to bolster that position, not undermine it, which seems to have been their approach. You want half your audience to agree with the other doctor in the end. Instead, the takeaway was “everyone on this ship is crazy–if I was on the Enterprise I’d be praying I didn’t get sick.”

   Reply