Ah, true - I think I owe you not just an apology but also an explanation.
1) Well, it is my attitude - I say "bullshit" a lot, coming from a culture where the absolutely mildest cussword is "cunt", used liberally as punctuation by four-year-olds and CEOs. In other, more civilized words, it's me expressing the sentiment that a held truth has no value on closer examination, except perhaps historical value.
2) It is also a somewhat hot topic in the real world today, but this isn't actually all that significant as such.
3) Deep down, it's a case of people of authority hiding behind rules that make no sense. "It's illegal" is merely a matter of rewriting the law if needed. And "one must stay detached" must be at first contrasted with "I must get involved" for comparison of merits, rather than let to hold on its own - especially in a field of study and practice this heavily weighed down by senseless tradition and ignorance.
4) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, this is a rather typical Trek thing: a weird phenomenon of the future born out not of writer intent but the sum total of lacunae left by writers. It's what makes Star Trek science fiction: the accidental "what if?" that deserves at least the examination of the question if not quite finding the answer. It's the real reason I watch Star Trek.
Also, I do apologize. So sorry about the bad language and the confrontational attitude.
Timo Saloniemi
Apology accepted, and thank you for this explanation. I think I see more where you are coming from having read it.
I think the difference in opinion here is that while you see it as a rule for having a rule's sake, I see it as a genuine ethical issue which provides a sound basis for having such a rule.
I think the most succinct way that I can sum it up is this: being a doctor, or any professional with a responsibility to act in someone's best interests such as a lawyer or teacher, involves making some difficult decisions and sometimes the patient/client won't like what you decide to do, or won't want to hear what you have to say. If you have a close personal relationship with the patient, there is a danger that you will choose to preserve that relationship in preference to being honest about the patient's best medical interest, creating a conflict of interest. There is also a risk of bias and blindness to truth born of desire for a different outcome because you are too emotionally invested in that outcome yourself.
Take a patient who is, for example, very unwell with cancer. An impartial doctor may decide that it is in the patient's best interests to stop aggressive treatment as the negative effects outweigh the benefits, and recommend that they switch to a palliative care pathway to make the remainder of their life as comfortable as possible. Would a doctor who is the patient's partner make the same choice? They
may do. But their own emotional desire to avoid loss, the dynamics of the relationship, and the wider relationships they inevitably have the with patient's
other loved ones come into play in a way which risks the patient's right to an impartial medical opinion which is based on the difficult but honest assessment of the facts. We can also wonder whether the cancer was caught later than it otherwise would have been because of a reluctance on the patient's part to worry their partner, or on the doctor's part to diagnose their loved one with a potentially terminal disease. The therapeutic relationship between medical professional and patient has to be one that is honest and open to unwanted and unpleasant truths. Adding personal relationships between them into that mix at the very best muddies the water.
In
Discovery, we have a character who has a clear medical issue who does not want to go to his doctor because the doctor is his partner, and he is worried about the impossible position it would put his partner in. That
cannot be in the patient's best interest. He clearly needs medical help, and is worried about obtaining it because of the effect it will have on his relationship with the doctor who would deliver it. I also question the flipside of this - we have a doctor who spends every night, as far as we know, with his patient he knows very well, and has not noticed any of the effects that Tilly and indeed we as viewers can see are relatively self evident?
