RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,920
Posts: 5,478,389
Members: 25,052
Currently online: 600
Newest member: johnclever25

TrekToday headlines

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 5 2014, 06:24 PM   #1156
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

zarkon wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post
I will throw the question back to you: how can you just let two innocent people die to allow another person to continue living, when you could save them? (In fact, that is the organ harvesting going on here. Or even an argument defending the actions of vampires, were there vampires. Your position is that it would be just fine to leave two people hooked up to an automatic blood-draining machine so that the vampire can survive. What right would we have to cause his death to save the two hooked up to the machine? And, after all, we're under no legal onus to help those people.) Fine, you have the law on your side. Are you right to leave those two people to die, though? I say you're killing them.
Uh what is all this stuff

I'm not even getting into all this blood transfusion stuff, it doesn't equate at all and raises all kinds of other issues that aren't in play in the Voyager scenario

-two people have muxed to create new life
-new life is sentient
-two people can be brought back by killing the new life

- you have to act to murder the new life to bring back the two people. That the new life came from the two is immaterial; the new life did not make that decision itself and thus cannot be held accountable for it. So the new life should stay.

I mean there's heavy play here from an emotional standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint it's always been pretty cut and dry for me
I've made more or less the same point.

But one part of a crime is Actus reus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

This is part of what it says about omission

Omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned causally using the but for approach. But for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred.

You could argue that the injury had already occured so the omission criteria could not be met and therefore could not be used in mitigation.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:25 PM   #1157
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Vandervecken

I DO recognize that I'd be killing Tuvix to return Tuvok and Neelix to true life
So - I see you're dr. Mengele wanna-be to the end - what with me being 'the barbarian' for choosing the moral option; you're not even pretending nowadays.

YOU are the barbarian here
Sure - and you and your hero Mengele&co are the civilized people. The Nuremberg trials - and the rest of humanity - disagrees.

The Doctor is not just taking any organs in the case of restoring Tuvok and Neelix; he is not attacking people with zero connection to them; he is taking back THEIR organs.
Janeway - not the Doctor - is part of the 'dr. Mengele wanna-be' club, as per VOY:Tuvix.

And Tuvix is Tuvok/Neelix's child. His 'organs' came from them but are nonetheless different, as the organs of a child come from his parents but are nonetheless different.
Guess what?
The doctor has no right to cut up a child for spare organs in order to save the comatose parents. That's what a child is yo you? A replacement heart? A new lung?
But wait - you used the straw-man de rigueur so it's all right, yes?

You seem determined to redundantly demonstrate that you have no functioning moral sense.

But I was advocating NOTHING.
Lol.
You kept advocating that, essentially, a doctor commits murder if he refuses to kill a person and cut him/her up for spare organs in order to save comatose people in need of transplants.
And in your last post, you went all the way to advocating murder followed by organ harvesting as the 'moral' course of action - as long as the one murdered is the child, and the comatose are the parents.
Once again your comparison is ludicrously inapt. Tuvix is NOT Tuvok and Neelix's child. A child's organs are brand new and all his or her own. They are derived from the parents' DNA--blueprints, which are endlessly reproducible--not from the parents' actual organs, as in Tuvix's case.

Yes, in this case, in this one, really odd case, a doctor IS committing murder if he refuses to "cut up" someone--Tuvix---to restore Neelix and Tuvok. Just as he's committing murder by doing that cutting up. Both directions lead to murder, in any ethical sense. if you want to delude yourself that somehow it's fine, by some legalistic pettifogging in which you stand on the letter of the law but ignore morality entirely, to leave Tuvok and Neelix essentially "dead" (but not dead to 24th century technology), but completely wrong to take apart Tuvix, then going ahead, kid yourself, but thank the gods you're not in any position of governmental authority or policymaking (I hope).

My posts say what they say. I advocated nothing. Do you even know what "advocacy" means? It means, in this instance, that I'd have to favor one position or the other in some ethical sense. I DO NOT.

You do provide some amusement, because you're unable to see how your own indictment applies to you. YOU are just fine with organ harvesting from living people; the evisceration of Tuvok and Neelix means nothing to you.

You seem to be committed to endlessly demonstrating that you're a bit short in the organ department yourself. Mainly brains.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:32 PM   #1158
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

zarkon wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post
I will throw the question back to you: how can you just let two innocent people die to allow another person to continue living, when you could save them? (In fact, that is the organ harvesting going on here. Or even an argument defending the actions of vampires, were there vampires. Your position is that it would be just fine to leave two people hooked up to an automatic blood-draining machine so that the vampire can survive. What right would we have to cause his death to save the two hooked up to the machine? And, after all, we're under no legal onus to help those people.) Fine, you have the law on your side. Are you right to leave those two people to die, though? I say you're killing them.
Uh what is all this stuff

I'm not even getting into all this blood transfusion stuff, it doesn't equate at all and raises all kinds of other issues that aren't in play in the Voyager scenario

-two people have muxed to create new life
-new life is sentient
-two people can be brought back by killing the new life

- you have to act to murder the new life to bring back the two people. That the new life came from the two is immaterial; the new life did not make that decision itself and thus cannot be held accountable for it. So the new life should stay.

I mean there's heavy play here from an emotional standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint it's always been pretty cut and dry for me
it isn't cut and dried.

NOT acting to save to mortally injured people would be morally and ethically reprehensible, whatever the law might have to say on the subject.

"This stuff" is applicable, but I'll subtract the vampire business. We'll make it a normal human who needs continuous transfusions of blood from two people who have been handcuffed to gurneys to create that supply. Eventually they'll die and be replaced by two others. It's done, a fait accomplit as far as you're concerned. That's what you're looking at with your eyes. The normal human is alive and fine, but WILL die without that blood supply. You need do nothing; you can just let those people die way ahead of their time, because you have no legal onus to do something, or you can disconnect them and save the one person draining them.

Cut and dried, huh?
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:33 PM   #1159
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Vandervecken

'Legalistic'?
Medical ethics are about morals.
As said, read up on the Nuremberg trials.

About you denying Tuvix, as a sapient being, has the right to own his own body and to live - ridiculous.
Much like your semantic hair-splitting meant to deny that Tuvix is Tuvok/Neelix's child - a result of their DNA mixing.
All these meant to dehumanize Tuvix, to make it OK for Janeway to murder him; I wonder if you actually are under the delusion that your rhetorics are not easy to see through.

PS - As for your 'advocacy' - apparently, you are also/again under the persistent delusion that other people can't actually read your last post.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:40 PM   #1160
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Yes but one requires an act, the other a lack of an act. As has been noted generally failure to act unless you had a duty of care to act does not legally constitute murder.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:41 PM   #1161
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Vandervecken

'Legalistic'?
Medical ethics are about morals.
As said, read up on the Nuremberg trials.

About you denying Tuvix, as a sapient being, has the right to own his own body and to live - ridiculous.

As for your 'advocacy' - apparently, you are under the persistent delusion that other people can't actually read your last post.
Wow, project much? I'M not the one citing the letter of the law here! it's YOU (and several others) who said there was no legal obligation to act to save people who are mortally hurt. I'VE been the one saying this is NOT about the law. I don't need a law to compel me to help two people bleeding to death on a floor--unlike you, apparently. Of course medical ethics are about morals--it's YOU who have been waving the law around like a get out of jail free card, or as if the absence of a law compelling you to help them is a magic wand freeing you of all responsibility to consider Tuvok's and Neelix's fates.

Helllooooo, is anyone home? Anyone in that little head of yours? I NEVER denied Tuvix is a sapient being. That isn't even an issue. AND I wrote that taking Tuvix apart is just as much murder as doing nothing to save Tuvok and Neelix--again and again and again. The difference between me and you is that I acknowledge that all three are people who count. Only Tuvix counts for you, clearly.


No, YOU are deluded. I never, ever advocated a single thing, and if you say so, then you are a bald-faced liar. My posts are crystal clear: BOTH actions are murder. Not ONCE did I deviate from that thesis.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:46 PM   #1162
zarkon
Captain
 
zarkon's Avatar
 
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

MacLeod wrote: View Post
I've made more or less the same point.

But one part of a crime is Actus reus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

This is part of what it says about omission

Omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned causally using the but for approach. But for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred.

You could argue that the injury had already occured so the omission criteria could not be met and therefore could not be used in mitigation.

Yeah. And I think the act itself would be murder, so in this case omission would become necessary.

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
it isn't cut and dried.

NOT acting to save to mortally injured people would be morally and ethically reprehensible, whatever the law might have to say on the subject.

"This stuff" is applicable, but I'll subtract the vampire business. We'll make it a normal human who needs continuous transfusions of blood from two people who have been handcuffed to gurneys to create that supply. Eventually they'll die and be replaced by two others. It's done, a fait accomplit as far as you're concerned. That's what you're looking at with your eyes. The normal human is alive and fine, but WILL die without that blood supply. You need do nothing; you can just let those people die way ahead of their time, because you have no legal onus to do something, or you can disconnect them and save the one person draining them.

Cut and dried, huh?
Again, this is a false equivalence. In the Voyager scenario, Tuvix has already been given their lives to make his own, but there is an option to take them back that will kill him.

It would be as if all the blood had already been drained and they were dead, but there was some magical way to reverse the procedure after the fact.

The equivalence here would be if you could undo the transporter accident in midstream should you; which would be fine as Tuvix hadn't even been created yet.
__________________
In defeat, malice. In victory, revenge.
zarkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:46 PM   #1163
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Yes but one requires an act, the other a lack of an act. As has been noted generally failure to act unless you had a duty of care to act does not legally constitute murder.
My point is that there's just as much ethical duty to act (or not act) in both cases. As I have written again and again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT A LEGAL COMPULSION. Although, for some reason, Chuckles here (Edit_XYZ) wants to ascribe YOUR position to ME.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:47 PM   #1164
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Vandervecken

No, YOU are deluded. I never, ever advocated a single thing, and if you say so, then you are a bald-faced liar.
?
The rest of your post is just more of the same obfuscating-wanna-be rhetoric - already conclusively demolished by myself and other posters.

But this - WOW. Quoting - as an example:
"I DO recognize that I'd be killing Tuvix to return Tuvok and Neelix to true life[...]
YOU are the barbarian here--YOU are the one who would leave two people to die of phaser wounds in a corridor (were Trek real life)."

Of course, civilized one, you didn't made clear you would kill Tuvix. Lol.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:49 PM   #1165
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

zarkon wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
I've made more or less the same point.

But one part of a crime is Actus reus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

This is part of what it says about omission

Omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned causally using the but for approach. But for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred.

You could argue that the injury had already occured so the omission criteria could not be met and therefore could not be used in mitigation.

Yeah. And I think the act itself would be murder, so in this case omission would become necessary.

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
it isn't cut and dried.

NOT acting to save to mortally injured people would be morally and ethically reprehensible, whatever the law might have to say on the subject.

"This stuff" is applicable, but I'll subtract the vampire business. We'll make it a normal human who needs continuous transfusions of blood from two people who have been handcuffed to gurneys to create that supply. Eventually they'll die and be replaced by two others. It's done, a fait accomplit as far as you're concerned. That's what you're looking at with your eyes. The normal human is alive and fine, but WILL die without that blood supply. You need do nothing; you can just let those people die way ahead of their time, because you have no legal onus to do something, or you can disconnect them and save the one person draining them.

Cut and dried, huh?
Again, this is a false equivalence. In the Voyager scenario, Tuvix has already been given their lives to make his own, but there is an option to take them back that will kill him.

It would be as if all the blood had already been drained and they were dead, but there was some magical way to reverse the procedure after the fact.

The equivalence here would be if you could undo the transporter accident in midstream should you; which would be fine as Tuvix hadn't even been created yet.
Sorry, not false at all. In the scenario I gave you, the people locked to the gurneys are already locked to the gurneys and hooked up for draining, just as Tuvix's creation had already happened. And they absolutely WILL die if you do nothing.

Since Tuvok and Neelix COULD be brought back, then they are not wholly dead, really--just like the people on the gurneys.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:53 PM   #1166
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Killing Tuvix is definantly fufils the criteria for murder because it requires an act, if you let Tuvix live and accepted the loss of Tuvok and Neelix does that inaction of not reversing the accident meet the criteria to be legally described as murder? I would say not others might disagree, if you think it does why?
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 06:56 PM   #1167
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Vandervecken

No, YOU are deluded. I never, ever advocated a single thing, and if you say so, then you are a bald-faced liar.
?
The rest of your post is just more of the same obfuscating-wanna-be rhetoric - already conclusively demolished by myself and other posters.

But this - WOW. Quoting - as an example:
"I DO recognize that I'd be killing Tuvix to return Tuvok and Neelix to true life[...]
YOU are the barbarian here--YOU are the one who would leave two people to die of phaser wounds in a corridor (were Trek real life)."

Of course, civilized one, you didn't made clear you would kill Tuvix. Lol.
LOL--you think you've demolished something? All you've done is demonstrate zero reasoning capacity, and an endless capacity for misstating what others have written. The fact is I've obliterated you, but you're too much full of self-love to be aware of that.

Uh, yeah, I wrote that--and I wrote its equivalent in every post of mine where applicable, which proves MY point about you being a liar. I was simply repeating it again for emphasis in the face of your repeated accusations that I had written SOMETHING I NEVER WROTE. And here you are, lying your ass off again.

I wrote that from the first post. NO, only in your head is it clear I'd kill Tuvix. I never wrote that--at all. I wrote that BOTH are killings/murder. YOU, though, have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that you'd leave Tuvok and Neelix to die.

You're living in some sort of fantasy realm inside your own head, it seems.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 07:00 PM   #1168
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Killing Tuvix is definantly fufils the criteria for murder because it requires an act, if you let Tuvix live and accepted the loss of Tuvok and Neelix does that inaction of not reversing the accident meet the criteria to be legally described as murder? I would say not others might disagree, if you think it does why?

The fact is, I don't CARE about the legality of it, and I'm not going to go down that road except to say--again--this is about the ethics behind the choice, not the law, at least for me. As far as I'm concerned, it's for you to explain to me why inaction here is not ethically murder, not for me to explain why it's not legally murder.

if you want to call this a "win" for yourself because inaction in this case is not legally murder, then go ahead.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 07:07 PM   #1169
zarkon
Captain
 
zarkon's Avatar
 
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
Sorry, not false at all. In the scenario I gave you, the people locked to the gurneys are already locked to the gurneys and hooked up for draining, just as Tuvix's creation had already happened. And they absolutely WILL die if you do nothing.

Since Tuvok and Neelix COULD be brought back, then they are not wholly dead, really--just like the people on the gurneys.
They are wholly dead though. That they can be brought back is a product of voyager technobabble. It's basically the same as magic here. They are not suffering in some twilight world, unless I have forgotten something from the episode - it has been a while since I saw it.
__________________
In defeat, malice. In victory, revenge.
zarkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 07:08 PM   #1170
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

Vandervecken

you think you've demolished something? All you've done is demonstrate zero reasoning capacity
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Yet again, you have proven Asimov's quote to be true.

As for what I - and others - have proven:
That is obvious to every non-morally challenged person; not having quite a few delusions helps, too.
Simply put, ethics (medical ethics) shows that Tuvix has the right to live, to his own body and any doctor is morally obligated to respect these rights. Indeed, not killing a person (child/whatever) in order to save comatose people in need of transplants is a murder only in your world divorced from reality.

As for yourself - I know, you cannot properly process such information, but using transparent straw-men, rhetoric, calling facts you don't like ridiculous/etc - or pretending what you've written a few posts ago doesn't exist any longer (lol) - proves nothing.
Nothing about the subject at hand, that is; it proves quite a lot about you.

You keep mentioning the Doctor as the person to murder Tuvix - despite me previously pointing this out to you. Apparently, even mentioning Janeway in this context by you is to be avoided.
You do at least realize that's quite pathetic, yes?
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; March 5 2014 at 07:26 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
janeway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.