No. It is exploring it in context of a fictional show in the future with new technology.
News Discovery New Character Breakdowns
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
Don't be absurd, if that technology simply removes the effects of the disability we have to all intents and purposes taken the disability away. The setting isn't about that technology, it's about the people who use it.
Trek hasn't done what you suggest so far, not with Geordie's visor, not with Pike's wheelchair, not with it's various and mixed portrayals of mental illness. It has placed the portrayal of the human being first and attempted to do so in a way which reflects the real world experiences of the viewer.
Squaring something away so that it has no impact isn't "exploring" it.
Is it so hard to imagine that in the future a person might feel competent, able, and like a contributing member of society while nonetheless using a wheelchair? I could easily wear contacts to stop being blind at distances, but I still wear a piece of glasses and plastic on my face--how ludicrous! A friend of mine in fact chooses to use a wheelchair rather than prosthesis--is that absurd because he could better fit normative models of ableness but chooses not to? Perhaps the future might involve people choosing to live in the way that seems best to them.
Thank you.
I'm bi polar, I'm also a mental health professional. The day a doctor in trek pulls out a tricorder and makes someone's mental illness just "go away" is the day I stop watching.
It's hard to understand why people don't get how offensive that would be.
Sometimes, it’s like Melora never happened.
And all sorts of things are dealt with technologically in the Trek future. There’s no light switches by the 24th century, replicators have done away with hunger and much dangerous to life, or the environment, heavy industries. Some of these are true in Discovery. Many diseases and conditions are cured, sometimes before birth. Other conditions have tech that can mitigate the condition down to more or less zero (Geordi and his Visor...except when it’s a plot point, he’s basically fine and in no way disadvantaged by his blindness. That’s a positive thing, and is on record as being such for many viewers.) The universal translator overcomes all language barriers between crew, totally independent of them needing to learn a new language (though they still do that) and species like the Benzite have tech that allows them to operate in atmospheres unlike their own.
The exo-skeleton (having first come up with a reason why a physical disability hasn’t been sorted out by any Trek Tech Medicine) is the best solution, because it works narratively like Geordis visor. You have an episode where it stops functioning for whatever reason, show the character handling things regardless and dealing with any difficulties that leads to. Have another episode where everyone else is unable to fix a situation, but due to something in the nature of the characters disabilty they alone are able to solve the problem...either because of their own experiences, or because it makes them better suited to a problem.
Trek is Trek, it’s had deaf/mute characters, and physically disabled characters before. With the exception of Geordi, usually as guest characters. In the future things are handled differently. Nog has a prosthetic leg, and there’s an arc for him dealing with that, and ultimately he does.
As to characters respecting differences...it’s Trek, they don’t bat an eyelid at Sarus hooves or waggling his ganglia every now and then, why would they have any issues anywhere else?
Trek has different needs and rules, and different purposes.
As to representation in actors....I always like the deaf actress on Sesame Street, and I think there was a detective show too no? Marina Sirtis used influences from Deaf Actresses in her original portrayal as Tori (Betazeds communicate telepathically, so she played it as someone not used to hearing as a means of communication, and not used to using their own voice basically...Lwxana blows it away, but it’s an interesting idea that a telepathic race would not bother with using their voice.) and I definitely think a modern-era Geordi character could be played by a deaf actor or actress for instance.
Physical disabilities are harder...we already move closer to eradicating the difficulties face by many disabled people in the here and now, prosthetics are making all sorts of advances, and many of these things are simply not a continuing thing in the future. To give you a modern day equivalent, people disabled by polio, or by amputations as a result of injury, were once much more common place...but technology and medicine mean this is less common. In a future where they can replicate or grow you replacement organs and body parts, they are going to be even less so. To the point where even nogs leg is unusual and because of specifics to the character, much the same as Kirks reading glasses (he’s allergic to retinax) a future where such things simply aren’t needed.
While I get and agree with the representation argument, this isn’t saying ‘in the future, people like you won’t exist’ in a negative way, it’s saying ‘in the future, there will be a way that people like you exist...because we are all people, and your specific difficulty will be cured, you wouldn’t have the difficulties you face now’ which is basically hope of a cure. It’s a very fine line, and difficult to express, but how many people would choose to continue with a disability if there was literally a way to wave a flashing light over you and change you to able-bodied? There isn’t now, so we deal with it the best way we can, and society needs to continue moving to allow people the best quality of life possible, and that’s something for us in the now. In the future, you don’t put a wheelchair ramp in, you fix the persons spine or what have you. I have very close relatives who are very far from able bodied, and I see the discussions around ways to try to bring them into a more able state...so much of it is based around risk, cost, likelihood of success. I guarantee that if Trek medicine existed, they or their parents would jump at the chance. That’s about wanting things to be better for them not about erasing them, and frankly I find it a strange way to think about it.
That’s before we even talk about the fact that it’s Starfleet...a job in space on a starship. I doubt I would pass the physical, no matter how smart I might be. On the other hand, since in the future, better health would be easier to achieve (though it looks like arthritis is still a thing according to McCoy. Wonder if that’s true only for age onset variants though.) maybe I would.
In terms of screen representation, I absolutely think having disabled people shown alongside able people working together is extremely important (anyone else love the Maltesers adverts at the moment? They are awesome.) I think Trek offers a different kind of positivity and hope, because it is, at the end of the day, a science-fiction show set in the future, with wondrous things meaning many of the difficulties we face today simply don’t exist, because we have moved past them in some way.
And all sorts of things are dealt with technologically in the Trek future. There’s no light switches by the 24th century, replicators have done away with hunger and much dangerous to life, or the environment, heavy industries. Some of these are true in Discovery. Many diseases and conditions are cured, sometimes before birth. Other conditions have tech that can mitigate the condition down to more or less zero (Geordi and his Visor...except when it’s a plot point, he’s basically fine and in no way disadvantaged by his blindness. That’s a positive thing, and is on record as being such for many viewers.) The universal translator overcomes all language barriers between crew, totally independent of them needing to learn a new language (though they still do that) and species like the Benzite have tech that allows them to operate in atmospheres unlike their own.
The exo-skeleton (having first come up with a reason why a physical disability hasn’t been sorted out by any Trek Tech Medicine) is the best solution, because it works narratively like Geordis visor. You have an episode where it stops functioning for whatever reason, show the character handling things regardless and dealing with any difficulties that leads to. Have another episode where everyone else is unable to fix a situation, but due to something in the nature of the characters disabilty they alone are able to solve the problem...either because of their own experiences, or because it makes them better suited to a problem.
Trek is Trek, it’s had deaf/mute characters, and physically disabled characters before. With the exception of Geordi, usually as guest characters. In the future things are handled differently. Nog has a prosthetic leg, and there’s an arc for him dealing with that, and ultimately he does.
As to characters respecting differences...it’s Trek, they don’t bat an eyelid at Sarus hooves or waggling his ganglia every now and then, why would they have any issues anywhere else?
Trek has different needs and rules, and different purposes.
As to representation in actors....I always like the deaf actress on Sesame Street, and I think there was a detective show too no? Marina Sirtis used influences from Deaf Actresses in her original portrayal as Tori (Betazeds communicate telepathically, so she played it as someone not used to hearing as a means of communication, and not used to using their own voice basically...Lwxana blows it away, but it’s an interesting idea that a telepathic race would not bother with using their voice.) and I definitely think a modern-era Geordi character could be played by a deaf actor or actress for instance.
Physical disabilities are harder...we already move closer to eradicating the difficulties face by many disabled people in the here and now, prosthetics are making all sorts of advances, and many of these things are simply not a continuing thing in the future. To give you a modern day equivalent, people disabled by polio, or by amputations as a result of injury, were once much more common place...but technology and medicine mean this is less common. In a future where they can replicate or grow you replacement organs and body parts, they are going to be even less so. To the point where even nogs leg is unusual and because of specifics to the character, much the same as Kirks reading glasses (he’s allergic to retinax) a future where such things simply aren’t needed.
While I get and agree with the representation argument, this isn’t saying ‘in the future, people like you won’t exist’ in a negative way, it’s saying ‘in the future, there will be a way that people like you exist...because we are all people, and your specific difficulty will be cured, you wouldn’t have the difficulties you face now’ which is basically hope of a cure. It’s a very fine line, and difficult to express, but how many people would choose to continue with a disability if there was literally a way to wave a flashing light over you and change you to able-bodied? There isn’t now, so we deal with it the best way we can, and society needs to continue moving to allow people the best quality of life possible, and that’s something for us in the now. In the future, you don’t put a wheelchair ramp in, you fix the persons spine or what have you. I have very close relatives who are very far from able bodied, and I see the discussions around ways to try to bring them into a more able state...so much of it is based around risk, cost, likelihood of success. I guarantee that if Trek medicine existed, they or their parents would jump at the chance. That’s about wanting things to be better for them not about erasing them, and frankly I find it a strange way to think about it.
That’s before we even talk about the fact that it’s Starfleet...a job in space on a starship. I doubt I would pass the physical, no matter how smart I might be. On the other hand, since in the future, better health would be easier to achieve (though it looks like arthritis is still a thing according to McCoy. Wonder if that’s true only for age onset variants though.) maybe I would.
In terms of screen representation, I absolutely think having disabled people shown alongside able people working together is extremely important (anyone else love the Maltesers adverts at the moment? They are awesome.) I think Trek offers a different kind of positivity and hope, because it is, at the end of the day, a science-fiction show set in the future, with wondrous things meaning many of the difficulties we face today simply don’t exist, because we have moved past them in some way.
Crusher did that in First Contact, but it’s really only apparent in the novelisation based on the script. I think prior to her intervention, Zefram Cochrane had an implant, probably using lithium or similar.
I can see why you would find it offensive, but I think some people with the disorder or experience would see it differently.
Thanks for working in that area, it is a very very difficult condition sometimes, and working in it can seem a thankless task. Even if I like the idea that one day we can have more effective ways of treating mental health conditions, an opinion about Trek somewhat opposite to your own, I do really appreciate the effort people put in now to help people lead their lives now in our real world.
You really don't have a clue do you?
What made Geordie so important was the fact he could have had normal vision restored, but chose not to because he was valued and worthwhile the way he was.
Thanks dude!
On balance though I'm really glad that wasn't used in the actual film as screened.
Please don't refer to me that way.
My apologies, but please try listening rather than dismissing out of hand what others experience.
People don't need a tv show to give them hope for a better future where problems can just be magicked away, they can find that perfectly well in a thousand other ways. I do it inside my head all the time.
What trek has always done at it's best is represent people and show how they can be valued and respected for what they are, without the need to change them into something they are not.
I’m fifty fifty on it. Gonna guess you are American? You have better treatment for the condition there (healthcare policy dependent at a guess.) Lithium is apparently very effective, and borderline natural (it comes out of the ground after all, and dissolves in water)
Here, despite our NHS, most treatments are all big-pharma drugs where it seems sometimes the side effects are almost worse (or in one experience, outright worse) than the condition. Getting Lithium is like getting blood out of a stone, and we have to resort to getting ahold of things like ‘health-supplements’ of lithium orotate via amazon or similar. I think it’s because of dodging the organisational expense of checking kidney function in a patient, versus taking the big-money kickback for the pharmaceutical company and just basically hoping for the best. It’s a longer story and discussion, but you certainly can deduce most of it, and can probably see why I would love the flashing lights on a stick all done approach, versus the side effects for some of the medicines themselves (not to mention the problems for the patient, and the people around them, when someone comes off the meds or tries to self medicate with alcohol or similar.) which may not always be necessary.
It’s a complex area, complicated by money and professional ego over here. Horrible.
Of course it may just turn out you are in a better postcode over here, and have better professionals in your neck of the wood, and therefore dodged my experiences in this area. XD
I reiterate my thanks though, the negative results that can occur in this area are harrowing, and it’s really tough to deal with it sometimes.
Au contrare I'm a brit (ironically I only removed my location a couple of hours ago on a whim having looked at the weather) and work in the NHS with forensic patients. To be honest I'd put our health provision ahead of the privatised US system any day of the week, most measurable outcomes which aren't biased by recording artefacts would tend to support that notion, although it is no exaggeration the effect cuts are having.
Lithium is far from being the final word in treatment, although as with all healthcare systems we are always going to be at the sway of pharmaceutical companies to some extent, more in terms of their tendency to incentivise certain medications rather than limit the availability of others.
I would normally agree. (Used to work in NHS too.xD) but having witnessed ME treatment (eep) and witnessed personality disorder treatment (and had a bad experience there, as you probably gather lol) I find it...angering.
You are right in that lithium isn’t the be all and end all, but given it’s potential side effects versus the other options, I can’t quite work out why it seems to not even be the starting point...working up to the other treatments if it proves necessary. Sometimes it seems like an approach akin to amputation being used to treat a grazed elbow. Guess I just got see a duff lot, though having seen the inside of the NHS I can’t help but feel the ‘saving money on tests’ is an issue. I have seen people spend a tenner to save five pence, then waste money in increasingly strange manners due to ideology or ignorance. (IT systems, the 2000s, decorations on a wall when a ward should probably be a better place to spend the money...the government changes, but the NHS just changes it’s acronyms in the departments. Aliens could invade tomorrow, take over the country, and the organisational structure of the NHS wouldn’t notice. Same people would be in charge, same money thrown down a pit in areas, same bunch of tired overworked underpaid staff, no matter who becomes Chief Imperatrix Of Health in the U.K Dominions of Lord Zarg)
Am glad your experience has been different. It’s like Trek. Gives me hope for the system lol.
Part of the caution shown around lithium as a mood stabiliser is it so often requires fairly high doses to reach therapeutic value (unlike it's usage within alcohol dependency for instance), doses which despite it's purpoted safety in general take one within spitting distance of toxicity. Combined with the fact it is rarely prescribed in isolation the effects of polypharmacy are also often on the mind of the clinician who will therefore opt for other options as a first line. It's actually really rather cheap compared to a lot of psychiatric medications, with the worst offenders often being the most potent antipsychotics (see clozapine).
Sorry to hear about your experiences. We aren't as good with personality disorder treatment as we'd like to be in the UK, but then frankly no one is. NHS Scotland do it slightly better than NHS England by redesignating PD treatment away from mainstream psychiatric services (we're slowly starting to make moves in that direction - I've recently been involved in the process of bringing some of our trust procedures in line with those of a neighbouring one ready for opening a new service more along those lines), although frankly even the best evidence in support of CBT or schema therapy is sketchy if truth be told and that's not localised to the NHS.
Totally. Like I said, it gives me hope they might get the system working better. I think helping people around the patient would help too, that seems very hit and miss. Clozapine is one of the ones I witnessed create and effect basically worse than the symptoms it was treating, but I think it’s part of the problem that treatments are often by their nature one size fits all. I think lithium orotate should be looked at more by studies within the NHS, based on anecdotal evidence it seems to be something worth looking at. (Since we did Acupuncture on the NHS, I am pretty sure we can look at it at least.) It is possibly effective at a lower dose, and therefore safer. It’s a tough nut that’s for sure.
I think even looking at mental health representation on screen it can be two steps forward, one step back (I actually seriously disliked Stephen Fry’s documentary...his attitude to some things came from a very...privileged position. I suspect even his own old stablemate Tony Slattery would not recognise the world Fry seemed to live in.)
I dunno. Drifting off OT xD
Things will get better. They usually do, by and large.
Quite. Plus, Geordi was thirty years ago, we really should be looking to improve on that representation, rather than use it as an excuse not to do it.
Similar threads
- Locked
