Dear Doctor Revisited

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

My child bride and I are re-watching Enterprise from the start and enjoying it as much as the first time through. We even really like Faith of the Heart! I was the moderator of this forum back in the day and painfully remember the fervid controversy raised by the moral and ethical decisions regarding the Valakians. It is a good thing certain people weren't physically gathered in one room. It provided some of the finest acting moments for Bakula and Billingsly over the idea of "Playing God". For me, it falls easily in my top 20 of all of Star Trek. Even the Phlox/Cutler (RIP Kellie Waymire) relationship and Reed birthday subplots were fun.
My own feelings are that they made the right call. The Valakians were going slowly extinct and the Menk were on the edge of an awakening that would have allowed them to thrive independently instead of as useful pets for their masters. The story fit in the TOS vein of moral dilemmas and Human/Vulcan reactions. It was a delight to see it again.

 

[amp]

My own feelings are that they made the right call. The Valakians were going slowly extinct and the Menk were on the edge of an awakening that would have allowed them to thrive independently instead of as useful pets for their masters.

The episode misunderstands how evolution works. A lot of Trek episodes that touch on evolution also have the same flaw.

Evolution isn't a path that a species is on, fated to eventually lead to some kind of predestined objective. Evolution is simply how a species may change over time in response to outside influences, i.e natural selection. There's no way for Phlox or anyone else to predict what would happen to the Menk if the Valakians all died off. It's just as likely that without the challenge of another sentient species on the planet, the Menk would have no reason to continue to evolve and increase their intelligence.

 

[Court_Vince]

Evolution isn't a path that a species is on, fated to eventually lead to some kind of predestined objective. Evolution is simply how a species may change over time in response to outside influences, i.e natural selection. There's no way for Phlox or anyone else to predict what would happen to the Menk if the Valakians all died off. It's just as likely that without the challenge of another sentient species on the planet, the Menk would have no reason to continue to evolve and increase their intelligence.

Exactly. Phlox made a decision based in his own ideas of what might happen. Nothing concrete, and that could've led to death of entire race.

 

[dupersuper]

Yeah, this is on my bottom 5. A horrible misunderstanding of what evolution is at a very basic level; turning Phlox into a genocidal monster and Archer into an accessory to genocide.

 

[Reanok]

Dear Doctor I didn't care for this one at all.A bout what decsion of which Vaalakans should live or die.This is one of my least favorite season1 shows for Enterprise.

 

[Emerald of Empire]

I still think they should have given the medicine. In the end, they met them for some reason, so it's fate, call it what you want. Can you help them? So help them! And don't shake the air with your moral reasoning! Very bad morals for me... Genocide as it is...

 

[SiddFinch1]

An interesting episode which is thought provoking. The ending however I find deeply flawed. Would rather Phlox couldn't solve it.

 

[Gul Sengosts]

Rewatching ENT right now too and this episode gets more disturbing the more I think about it. I don't know if Phlox swore the Hippocratic Oath, but for someone who doesn't want to play God he makes some pretty Godlike decision.

The first issue is the idea that a species on the course of extinction shouldn't be protected. Pandas are about to go extinct if we don't actively preserve them. Orang-Utans are too. Does that mean we shouldn't try to preserve them? And in this case, we're not talking about pandas, but about an actual sentient species of millions of people (iirc) that asked for help.

If you think a "genetically sick" species should die out in favour of a "genetically healthy" one, congratulations, you fully agree with the national socialists.

Furthermore -- and I think this is a general problem with ENT as far as I've rewatched it -- nobody "at home", Starfleet, Earth, Vulcan, whatever, is contacted even for suggestions. Here are two guys who presume to decide on life or death of an entire sentient species, and they don't even consider asking their superiors. It's a general issue of ENT that there don't seem to be any rules or guidelines whatsoever and that Archer is just sent out there to do whatever he feels like, but in this case it gets really disturbing. Even if they came to the right conclusion, the fact that it is just two guys deciding this based on their personal feelings is very concerning.

What's even more is that Archer lies in their face. He knows they're dying, for whatever reason he decides he shouldn't help them, and he pretends he doesn't know anything about it and can't help them. That's some top grade ethics, really reminds me why I found Star Trek inspirational at some point.

Archer actually asked Phlox the right question: aren't you interfering with "nature's course" whenever you heal someone who's about to die? But after asking that, it's just brushed under the carpet and doesn't come up again. What's left is an episode that has deep tough questions and simplistic disturbing answers. It's not one of Trek's fine moments.

 

[saneinthemembrane]

It's actually way worse than all that.

Because it assumes they can't both live alongside each other. The moral ambiguity (if it exists) is based on one vs the other. Who the **** said its one or the other?

It's like saying humans couldn't have evolved in a world with chimpanzees, or white people in a world with ___ race.

It's freaking horrible, both logically and morally.

 

[saneinthemembrane]

The right ending to this would have been T'pol rolling in and saying, "logically, two species can coexist, here are 5000 examples, you freaks."

 

[Oddish]

"Genocide" implies active destruction of a species, people, or culture. Archer and Phlox did not do that. They simply allowed a species that evolution had already destined for oblivion to continue on it's way. The Menk, while a factor in their decision, were not relevant to whether their action (or inaction) was genocide.

If I push a man who can't swim into a lake and he drowns, that's murder. If I find a man drowning already, and it's within my ability to safely rescue him, and I don't... well, that's reprehensible. But technically, it's not murder.

 

[suarezguy]

I think it's an OK episode solely due to Billinglsey's and more so Bakula's acting, they make the scenario more believable and compelling then it otherwise would be, but while the scenario is somewhat interesting Phlox's attitude still seems too extreme and especially the conclusion still isn't quite believable, let alone persuasive, enough. I don't think it's genocide and Phlox isn't definitely a monster but he does come close, he does at least comes off as egomaniacal.

An early Prime Directive-ish story really should have had Archer understandably making a mistake with bad consequences before being *so* humble about non-interference. Or the episode would have been better with a lot more clearly pointing out that Earth may later help the Valakians, Archer will leave it for higher authorities to decide.

The moral ambiguity (if it exists) is based on one vs the other. Who the **** said its one or the other? .

Well the Menk were being exploited/oppressed, helping the other would in effect (short of taking over the planet) be against them.

 

[saneinthemembrane]

Well the Menk were being exploited/oppressed, helping the other would in effect (short of taking over the planet) be against them.

Not at all, oppression doesn't stop genetic evolution. And as almost every race/sect/religion etc on earth has been oppressed at some point, it doesn't guarantee it will stay that way forever, either.

 

[Swedish Borg]

I am sorry but the idea that a species could evolve toward extinction is beyond stupid. Evolution is about survival not about going extinct. I don't know who said it but one of the rare sensible comments in the episode was that when two species enter in competition the most likely outcome is that one will drive the other one to extinction, as we (as a species) have done with all the other types of hominids that existed contemporaneously with homo sapiens. If the question is whether Archer had a moral right to refuse a medical treatment that was already created, my answer is a definitive NO, he didn't. One can even argue that it was criminal of him to do so.

Do I think this is a good episode by Enterprise standards? NO, I don't think so. There are too many of these moments that stretch credibility to make it even average. Hoshi is shocked because there's a second language on the planet!! Please!!! We currently have more than 5, 000!! probably twice as many!! And then they're amazed that the mink learned two words of English in two days!!! Are they talking about a man or a parrot!!!

As for the idea, we're gonna let the Valakian die, so that the Menk could have their chance, IMO that's borderline Nazi reasoning. During Nazi Germany, the kids at school would have their math problems posed in these terms: "How many healthy couples can you finance with the money given to one handicapped person?"... Doesn't it sound similar to Archer's and Phlox's reasoning? To me it does, and that's scary.

 

[JaxsBrokenHeart]

If Dear Doctor's central debate was not about a remedying the disease (with Phlox saying he hasn't the information, resources, or staff to create one that quickly) and was instead centered around whether to give the Valakians warp technology (with lines suggesting that they have some familiarity with it), then it would be one of the better ethical dilemmas in not just Enterprise but Trek in general.

Archer would have to face a choice of denying them a potential chance to find a cure off-planet elsewhere or giving them something that could very easily pose a real threat to both them and the unaffected Menk if mishandled. Rather than dubious notions of genetic destiny and a poor comprehension of evolution, it would be rooted in a very specific knowledge of a highly dangerous piece of technology that can destructive consequences if it goes even slightly wrong. His conclusion to not give it to them would maybe not be a choice everyone agreed with, but it would be an understandable one.

 

[Oddish]

During Nazi Germany, the kids at school would have their math problems posed in these terms: "How many healthy couples can you finance with the money given to one handicapped person?"...

Just because the Nazi's asked a question doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. I've served in special education for a number of years, and I've seen an intensive special ed class with 5 students and 3 teachers aides, while kindergarten and first grade teachers were usually alone with 25 or so kids. Consider: those three aides could have helped out in K or 1 classes and helped 75 first graders or 150 kindergartners get a much stronger start in school. Instead, they were overseeing 5 kids who will probably require lifelong care no matter how many aides are in with them. In other words, the many suffer for the sake of the few. And despite having a disability myself, I can't help wondering if that's really logical.

 

[dupersuper]

a species that evolution had already destined for oblivion

That's not a thing.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Just because the Nazi's asked a question doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. I've served in special education for a number of years, and I've seen an intensive special ed class with 5 students and 3 teachers aides, while kindergarten and first grade teachers were usually alone with 25 or so kids. Consider: those three aides could have helped out in K or 1 classes and helped 75 first graders or 150 kindergartners get a much stronger start in school. Instead, they were overseeing 5 kids who will probably require lifelong care no matter how many aides are in with them. In other words, the many suffer for the sake of the few. And despite having a disability myself, I can't help wondering if that's really logical.

It a horrible thing to say.

 

[Swedish Borg]

....They simply allowed a species that evolution had already destined for oblivion to continue on it's way. ....

There's no such thing! Species don't evolve toward extinction.

 

[Oddish]

It a horrible thing to say.

I'm still a special educator, I just do transportation now. And for the most part, I support what I'm doing. I normally transport high functioning ASD kids to a school that helps them learn and shields them from the bullying and ostracism they would get elsewhere. Yes, they take a bigger bite of the education budget than gen ed kids, but I, and their teachers and aides, truly accomplish something meaningful. But, as I said, I have also worked jobs where I felt that I wasn't really accomplishing much.