Critical Care

[Captrek]

So just...be a slave ostensibly forever.

This had nothing to do with escape.

I’m raising issues of law, ethics and morality that you continue to refuse to address. You seem to be claiming that there is nothing that is not justified by being a victim. I’m saying the Doctor’s actions violated deontological rules, social utilitarian reasoning, the Ten Comandments, medical ethics, the local law, Federation law, the Prime Directive, and every moral concept there is except “Bad guys have no rights that good guys are bound to respect” (and the populations of worlds whose ethical standards you deplore are bad guys).

 

[Tosk]

that you continue to refuse to address.

I don't believe that's true. I already said, "In my opinion, the Doctor stretches one of his values (do no harm) to reinforce another (medical care for all who need it). The needs of the many forced him to do something he might not otherwise do." Just because you disagree with my answer doesn't mean I didn't give an answer.

You seem to be claiming that there is nothing that is not justified by being a victim.

No, my stance is that being kidnapped and forced into servitude affects everything that comes after that, and is an integral part of the conversation. You disagree with that stance and wish to examine the Doctor's actions free of any of the context and circumstances that lead to those actions.

So we could never really agree on his actions because we never agreed on the parameters of the conversation in the first place.

If the story was about a doctor that worked in a hospital willingly and then did exactly what the EMH did, my answer would likely be different.

 

[Captrek]

I don't believe that's true. I already said, "In my opinion, the Doctor stretches one of his values (do no harm) to reinforce another (medical care for all who need it). The needs of the many forced him to do something he might not otherwise do." Just because you disagree with my answer doesn't mean I didn't give an answer.

True — but it also doesn’t mean you gave one that addresses my points. I laid out specific ethical frameworks the Doctor violated: deontology, social utilitarianism, medical ethics, the Ten Commandments, local law, Federation law, and the Prime Directive. I forgot social contract theory, but he violated that one too. If your position is that his actions were justified, then I’d ask: under which of those standards?

If none, then maybe it’s time to reflect on what you’re actually using to justify it — and whether it’s a coherent moral framework or just outrage in search of a rationale.

No, my stance is that being kidnapped and forced into servitude affects everything that comes after that, and is an integral part of the conversation. You disagree with that stance and wish to examine the Doctor's actions free of any of the context and circumstances that lead to those actions.

I agree it affects what follows — but not in the unlimited way you seem to imply. I’m not saying context is irrelevant. I’m saying that being a victim doesn’t nullify ethical and legal standards unrelated to escaping captivity. If you’re not arguing that the Doctor was entitled to violate all norms because he was abducted, then great — clarify where your line actually is.

Because so far, the logic sounds like: “He was wronged, so now he gets to do wrong.” That may feel satisfying, but it’s not ethics.

 

[NCC-73515]

just picking one of those... which commandment did he violate?

 

[Tosk]

Because so far, the logic sounds like: “He was wronged, so now he gets to do wrong.”

You're misreading my original comment, either intentionally or not. I'll quote it again here to avoid having to click back.

"In my opinion, the Doctor stretches one of his values (do no harm) to reinforce another (medical care for all who need it). The needs of the many forced him to do something he might not otherwise do."

The EMH doesn't do it happily, and later even suspects his program might not be working correctly. Like him, I'm not saying that it's a totally cool thing to do. Just that in this instance, I can see why he thought it was necessary.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The EMH is as justified and correct to act the way he did. Yes.

 

[at Quark's]

One of those eternal dilemmas. Are good people allowed to do less savoury ('evil') acts for a good purpose (in their eyes) or to prevent greater (amount of)evil? I think people must have been asking that question since the stone age, and I don't think a definitive answer has ever or will ever been found.

 

[David cgc]

The Allocator is a program developed by this society for its general benefit. It’s not an intelligence imposing its own will.

As we've seen in real life since this episode was made, unthinking systems and programs tend to exacerbate and emphasize existing biases, prejudices, and other deficits that predate the system beyond what would be remotely acceptable if it was the act of an individual. There's a slide from an IBM presentation from the 1970s that goes around now and then that reads, "A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision."

Unfortunately, in practice, that's turned into "A computer can never be held accountable. Yay!"

The Allocator is an excuse, a digital sin-eater allowing decision makers do pursue profit while absolving themselves of the things necessary to make the line go up endlessly, beyond the point where the hospital (in this case) is no longer serving its original purpose and is actually acting against promoting the health and well-being of its patients in the pursuit of abstract goals of meaningless levels of wealth.

 

[Michael]

This episode just came up during our rewatch the other day, so my memory is relatively fresh. It’s not perfect, but I think it was cool that even this late during its run they wrote an episode that actually tried to say something meaningful.

I would say the doctor’s act of poisoning Chellick was definitely a surprising turn of events because it’s in direct contradiction of his “do no harm” doctrine (which earlier in the series would either cause him to outright refuse compliance [in “Tuvix”] or lead to a “mental breakdown” of his program [in “Latent Image”]). My view is that his actions weren’t ideal, but that it’s a case where a drastic measure like this might have been justified. His threat of letting Chellick die (and let’s face it, I don’t think there’s any way he ultimately would have gone through with it, so it was only ever a threat) directly leads to a number of lives being saved that would have otherwise died because of Chellick enforcing an immoral state policy.

Sorry for the Godwin, but an analogous situation might be that Chellick was like Josef Mengele, conducting vile and inhumane but state-sanctioned medical “experiments” on prisoners. His rationale was that he was within his moral and ethical rights to commit these acts, because the laws and ethics of the state granted him those rights and told him it was for the greater good of society. But if there was someone like the holographic doctor present to poison him to stop those repulsive “experiments”, I would ultimately say he would have been justified in poisoning him to at least lessen the suffering of his victims at the expense of him suffering.

I laid out specific ethical frameworks the Doctor violated: deontology, social utilitarianism, medical ethics, the Ten Commandments, local law, Federation law, and the Prime Directive. I forgot social contract theory, but he violated that one too. If your position is that his actions were justified, then I’d ask: under which of those standards?

I won’t pretend to be too versed on its finer points, but wouldn’t the doctor’s actions be justified under Social Contract theory? Both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited that if the government violates natural rights or becomes tyrannical, people have the right and duty to rebel or overthrow it (in fact that principle seems to be enshrined in many laws in Western societies). That’s the kind of principal under which the doctor acted.

To them, a small minority of patients who make disproportionate contributions to society are higher priority.

I might point out that the hospital works that way for the benefit of society at large

You seem to take this as fact, but I actually don’t think the episode makes a definitive statement about whether the “Allocator” is even doing what Chellick says it does. I thought the implication in the episode was that what the “Allocator” does is actually just reinforcing a class system where a wealthy minority is granted more rights and better access to health care at the expense of a poor majority, that it is keeping in check and systematically preventing from even escaping the trappings of their class. (In fact, that’s the whole point of the tragic side story with Tebbis, who’s shown to obviously have much more potential than the “Allocator” wants to grant.) The whole concept of it coldly, methodically and, I guess, “fairly” calculating the “merit to society” of each individual seemed like a pretense to maintain an ultimately unjust capitalist society. Come to think of it, I would argue that’s the whole point of the real world analogy crafted within the episode. If you watch this and think that would actually be a good thing to have an AI rank individuals by their “worth to society”, then you’re missing the point of the episode.

 

[Captrek]

just picking one of those... which commandment did he violate?

OK, he just threatened to kill, so technically he didn’t violate Thou Shall Not Kill.

However, he messed with the guy’s Treatment Coefficient by telling the system he was somebody else, which is False Witness. And he does it because he covets somebody else’s property; coveting something because you want to use it to help others is still coveting. And it’s still theft—armed robbery is not okay even if you’re stealing medicine.

 

[Captrek]

This episode just came up during our rewatch the other day, so my memory is relatively fresh. It’s not perfect, but I think it was cool that even this late during its run they wrote an episode that actually tried to say something meaningful.

I would say the doctor’s act of poisoning Chellick was definitely a surprising turn of events because it’s in direct contradiction of his “do no harm” doctrine (which earlier in the series would either cause him to outright refuse compliance [in “Tuvix”] or lead to a “mental breakdown” of his program [in “Latent Image”]). My view is that his actions weren’t ideal, but that it’s a case where a drastic measure like this might have been justified. His threat of letting Chellick die (and let’s face it, I don’t think there’s any way he ultimately would have gone through with it, so it was only ever a threat) directly leads to a number of lives being saved that would have otherwise died because of Chellick enforcing an immoral state policy.

“It was only ever a threat” isn’t much a justification. Armed robbery may not be murder if nobody dies, but it’s still armed robbery and bodily assault.

Sorry for the Godwin, but an analogous situation might be that Chellick was like Josef Mengele, conducting vile and inhumane but state-sanctioned medical “experiments” on prisoners. His rationale was that he was within his moral and ethical rights to commit these acts, because the laws and ethics of the state granted him those rights and told him it was for the greater good of society. But if there was someone like the holographic doctor present to poison him to stop those repulsive “experiments”, I would ultimately say he would have been justified in poisoning him to at least lessen the suffering of his victims at the expense of him suffering.

Maybe. We don’t know anything about this world, and neither does the Doctor. You can’t dehumanize someone just because “for all I know, he might be Josef Mengele.”

I won’t pretend to be too versed on its finer points, but wouldn’t the doctor’s actions be justified under Social Contract theory? Both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited that if the government violates natural rights or becomes tyrannical, people have the right and duty to rebel or overthrow it (in fact that principle seems to be enshrined in many laws in Western societies). That’s the kind of principal under which the doctor acted.

Tyrannical government? We don’t know anything about this world. We only know we disapprove of the way medicine is practiced there. It could be a monarchy or it could be a democracy. And is “overthrow tyrannical governments on alien worlds” supposed to be a Star Trek value? The “die-at-sixty” laws in Half a Life might be appalling to us, but we don’t change it at gunpoint.

You seem to take this as fact, but I actually don’t think the episode makes a definitive statement about whether the “Allocator” is even doing what Chellick says it does.

No, you seem to be taking the contrary as fact. I’m criticizing the Doctor’s actions and this defense seems to be “how do you know they didn’t deserve it?” Are you assuming they did, or are you arguing that everything is justified because they might? Chellik says he is following the laws as they were adopted by this society for its overall benefit. The fact that we haven’t had an opportunity to verify that he’s telling the truth doesn’t justify armed robbery. You are correct to reject the assumption that he is telling the truth, but not correct to reason from the assumption that he is lying.

I’m criticizing the Doctor’s actions. That doesn’t mean I’m on Chellik’s side and taking his word for everything. This isn’t about partisan loyalty, at least to me.

 

[Michael]

“It was only ever a threat” isn’t much a justification. Armed robbery may not be murder if nobody dies, but it’s still armed robbery and bodily assault.

I didn’t mean to imply that the fact that the doctor didn’t outright plan to murder Chellik was a justification for the doctor’s actions. I fully understand that when the doctor did this he should have factored in the possibility of unintentionally causing Chellik’s death. I added this in parentheses just to give further context. Just as a judge or jury would if they were presented with your hypothetical armed robber whose actions resulted in someone’s death would. Planning to murder Chellik and threatening to let Chellik die while secretly planning to avoid that are obviously two different things, one much worse than the other, both in moral and legal terms. But that doesn’t mean that it’s justifying the act of merely doing the latter.

Maybe. We don’t know anything about this world, and neither does the Doctor. You can’t dehumanize someone just because “for all I know, he might be Josef Mengele.”

Huh? How does he not know anything about this world after spending several days there as their captive, being forced to work for them and talking to multiple people with multiple different perspectives on the issue? He obviously got a pretty good picture to realize they were practicing something that he considered completely immoral.

As for the Mengele analogy: Do you want to say in that situation you would find it unwarranted to poison and threaten Mengele into ceasing his torture? And: What would you say makes Chellik different from Mengele?

Tyrannical government? We don’t know anything about this world. We only know we disapprove of the way medicine is practiced there. It could be a monarchy or it could be a democracy.

First of all, I said “violates natural rights or becomes tyrannical”, so both doesn’t have to be fulfilled in order for a people or person to justifiably rebel. Secondly, I personally would argue a government that lets people die because they created a computer program that they use as justification to sort their citizens into “worthy” and “unworthy” people is acting tyrannical towards their subjects. I don’t see how it would matter if it’s a monarchy, democracy or whatever. Does it make it any less immoral if a majority voted that practice into effect?

And is “overthrow tyrannical governments on alien worlds” supposed to be a Star Trek value?

I didn’t actually say it was or wasn’t. You specifically mentioned how the doctor “violated Social Contract theory”. I was merely pointing out how he doesn’t necessarily, considering the idea to rebel and overthrow is anchored into that theory.

Also, for every episode of Trek you could mention where they avoid interfering or influencing an alien society (you mention The Next Generation’s “Half a Life”) I can name you one where they do decide to interfere and influence. So I don't feel that would be a very productive exercise.

No, you seem to be taking the contrary as fact. I’m criticizing the Doctor’s actions and this defense seems to be “how do you know they didn’t deserve it?” Are you assuming they did, or are you arguing that everything is justified because they might? Chellik says he is following the laws as they were adopted by this society for its overall benefit. The fact that we haven’t had an opportunity to verify that he’s telling the truth doesn’t justify armed robbery.

The former: I read the episode as trying to demonstrate that the “Allocator” is either acting arbitrarily or to make certain the status quo of the rich/poor divide in their capitalist society is maintained.

But in all actuality I would say this whole matter of whether the “Allocator” is acting faulty (which I would argue the episode does demonstrate that with Tebbis’ story) or actually somehow correctly calculates an individual’s “merit to society“ is separate from the discussion of whether the doctor’s action to poison Chellik was wrong or right. Because even if the “Allcator” works accurately, I would still consider the whole concept of basing the decision of whether to medically treat someone or not on their supposed “worth to society” deeply immoral. And I believe that’s actually the whole point the episode tries to make.

And it’s still theft—armed robbery is not okay even if you’re stealing medicine.

On this I just disagree. It totally could be okay if the people you are stealing it from are an immoral state keeping the medicine from people who don’t deserve to suffer or die just as much as people who are better off in society don’t.

Also, personally I couldn’t care any less whether what the doctor (or anyone, for that matter) did violated one of the Ten Commandment. It’s not as if they ever kept Christians (or other Abrahamic religions) from waging “just wars” and kill to defend against or prevent a greater evil.

 

[Captrek]

I didn’t mean to imply that the fact that the doctor didn’t outright plan to murder Chellik was a justification for the doctor’s actions. I fully understand that when the doctor did this he should have factored in the possibility of unintentionally causing Chellik’s death. I added this in parentheses just to give further context. Just as a judge or jury would if they were presented with your hypothetical armed robber whose actions resulted in someone’s death would. Planning to murder Chellik and threatening to let Chellik die while secretly planning to avoid that are obviously two different things, one much worse than the other, both in moral and legal terms. But that doesn’t mean that it’s justifying the act of merely doing the latter.

Of the many crimes, sins, and ethical violations that he has committed, murder is not one of them. Why do people keep saying “nobody died” as if it’s a defense?

Among the others, he poisoned a man and threatened to let him die in order to extort him. “He caved and I didn’t actually let him die” is not a defense to that crime that would be accepted in any court of law. It’s not a defense at all. It’s a tribal response to shift the conversation from what your guy did to what your guy didn’t do.

Huh? How does he not know anything about this world after spending several days there as they’re captive, being forced to work for them and talking to multiple people with multiple different perspectives on the issue? He obviously got a pretty good picture to realize they were practicing something that he considered completely immoral.

If you feel it’s justified by what we see on screen establish that. Don’t justify it in terms of what you’re speculating is going on off screen.

As for the Mengele analogy: Do you want to say in that situation you would find it unwarranted to poison and threaten Mengele into ceasing his torture? And: What would you say makes Chellik different from Mengele?

Chellik isn’t actually torturing people. He’s just operating in a system that doesn’t allocate its scarce resources to them. Neglect is not comparable to Mengele’s crimes. We’re not talking about extorting someone into ceasing torture, we’re taking about extorting someone into providing medicine.

Mengele was the kind of guy who deliberately infected people with fatal diseases. That’s not Chellik. That’s someone else in this episode.

First of all, I said “violates natural rights or becomes tyrannical”, so both doesn’t have to be fulfilled in order for a people or person to justifiably rebel. Secondly, I personally would argue a government that lets people die because they created a computer program that they use as justification to sort their citizens into “worthy” and “unworthy” people is acting tyrannical towards their subjects. I don’t see how it would matter if it’s a monarchy, democracy or whatever. Does it make it any less immoral if a majority voted that practice into effect?

Actually, yes.

TNG handled a similar scenario in Half a Life. Instead of people with low TC, it was people over 60, and instead of merely withholding medicine it was actively killing.

What did Picard do? Argued. Pleaded. And when ethical means failed, he stopped. He didn’t resort to Janeway Diplomacy or violence. He didn’t impose change at gunpoint.

I also don’t particular care about the Ten Commandments in this context, I was merely listing it as one of many possible moral frameworks and pointing out that he fails under all of them. Again, “I don’t care about some of them” isn’t much of any argument.

I didn’t actually say it was or wasn’t. You specifically mentioned how the doctor “violated Social Contract theory”. I was merely pointing out how he doesn’t necessarily, considering the idea to rebel and overthrow is anchored into that theory.

Poisoning a hospital administrator because you don’t like agree with the way medicine is allocated is a legitimate act of rebellion? Violent revolution to ensure equal distribution of medicine isn’t Locke and Rousseau, it’s Marx and Lenin.

Social contract theory is, of course, defined by the society in which it functions. Doc doesn’t like the way this society understands the contract, so this kind of violence is an appropriate response?

You’re treading in “Everything is justified when you’re confident the other side is in the wrong” territory.

I’ll address the rest later.

 

[Michael]

Of the many crimes, sins, and ethical violations that he has committed, murder is not one of them. Why do people keep saying “nobody died” as if it’s a defense?

Among the others, he poisoned a man and threatened to let him die in order to extort him. “He caved and I didn’t actually let him die” is not a defense to that crime that would be accepted in any court of law. It’s not a defense at all. It’s a tribal response to shift the conversation from what your guy did to what your guy didn’t do.

I know I’m repeating myself, but again, I’m not really trying to justify or defend the doctor’s actions with this, just pointing out the context and give the thing the nuance it deserves. I just don’t consider it a black and white issue, but a morally grey situation, and that scene with Seven at the end of the episode seems to confirm that the writers intended it to be read that way; he’s saving many lives, but he’s wondering if the end justified the means.

I agree with you that “he didn’t let him die” wouldn’t be a full defense in court. But at the same time I would also say that you're treating it as if intent is fully irrelevant, which in most courts it isn’t. The difference between intending to kill and threatening to harm while actually planning to prevent harm isn’t a “tribal” excuse, it’s a morally and legally recognized distinction. Most courts would take intent and proportionality very much into account to reach their verdict.

If you feel it’s justified by what we see on screen establish that. Don’t justify it in terms of what you’re speculating is going on off screen.

I don’t really know what to tell you other than that’s basically what the entire episode is about; it’s all on the screen: They show us how the doctor arrives on the planet and learns about their system of treating and preventing treatment of patients based on an immoral idea of individual “worth to society”. He’s confronted with a cynical, calculated, bureaucratized system of medical discrimination that condemns people to suffer and die based on what a computer program is saying. One that is also shown to be faulty through the story of Tebbis. That is the dehumanization taking place in the episode.

The doctor tries reasoning at first and exhausts all diplomatic avenues. He tries to trick the system to still be able and treat those in need. And then he uses a non-lethal, targeted tactic to force a change that would save lives. He’s targeting the person directly responsible for implementing these immoral and deadly policies. That’s how the episode presents the premise, not much in the way of speculation necessary. They portray the doctor’s actions as surprising, extreme and morally questionable, but make sure to underscore that his intent is a good one and his actions probably justified.

Let me ask you this, though: Under what moral framework is it just that a medication that could save the very life of a person is instead administered to someone else to prevent their “arterial aging“ (which I take to mean it’s not administered as a life-saving measure)? Chellik tells the doctor resources are scarce in their society, and that might be so. But doesn’t the fact that you know it’s administered as an anti-aging drug instead of saving lives tell you that it’s an immoral system that the doctor (or anyone in that society) is in their rights to fight against?

Chellik isn’t actually torturing people. He’s just operating in a system that doesn’t allocate its scarce resources to them. Neglect is not comparable to Mengele’s crimes. We’re not talking about extorting someone into ceasing torture, we’re taking about extorting someone into providing medicine.

So would you say in the Mengele example it would be justified to poison Mengele to extort him to cease torture?

I agree that both situations are not the same, but I still feel they are similar enough and in both situations I feel extreme measures might be justified to achieve a greater good. Chellik is not literally torturing the patients under his supervision, but he’s condemning them to their death when he sends them home. He even takes responsibility for this in the text, saying “They brought me here to make the hard choices they don't want to make.”

Actually, yes.

How so? In the abstract, if there is an immoral policy, why does it make that policy more or less immoral if it’s implemented by a monarch vs. a democratic vote?

TNG handled a similar scenario in Half a Life. Instead of people with low TC, it was people over 60, and instead of merely withholding medicine it was actively killing.

What did Picard do? Argued. Pleaded. And when ethical means failed, he stopped. He didn’t resort to Janeway Diplomacy or violence. He didn’t impose change at gunpoint.

And in “Justice” he didn’t stop there, but ends up completely ignoring the locals’ laws and customs and enforces his will anyway, under the implied threat of superior technology and force. How does that help us?

Poisoning a hospital administrator because you don’t like agree with the way medicine is allocated is a legitimate act of rebellion?

Yes. Why is it not?

You’re treading in “Everything is justified when you’re confident the other side is in the wrong” territory.

Again with the black and white. Not everything, no. But what the doctor did might have been justified.

 

[NCC-73515]

Watch twilight zone obsolete man

 

[Captrek]

I know I’m repeating myself, but again, I’m not really trying to justify or defend the doctor’s actions with this, just pointing out the context and give the thing the nuance it deserves. I just don’t consider it a black and white issue, but a morally grey situation, and that scene with Seven at the end of the episode seems to confirm that the writers intended it to be read that way; he’s saving many lives, but he’s wondering if the end justified the means.

I agree with you that “he didn’t let him die” wouldn’t be a full defense in court. But at the same time I would also say that you're treating it as if intent is fully irrelevant, which in most courts it isn’t.

It is irrelevant in the ways you keep bringing it up. He hasn’t been accused of actually killing or even planning to. “There are worse things I could do” is not a justification.

Rejecting a claim that A implies B is not a claim that A is generally irrelevant, it just means it doesn’t support the conclusion you’re drawing.

The difference between intending to kill and threatening to harm while actually planning to prevent harm isn’t a “tribal” excuse, it’s a morally and legally recognized distinction. Most courts would take intent and proportionality very much into account to reach their verdict.

No, “He wouldn’t really have let him die” actually isn’t given much weight, because it’s entirely speculative (unless you have the right kind of connections and call them character witnesses). At most it’s considered in sentencing, which we haven’t gotten to and I don’t intend to get to.

I don’t really know what to tell you other than that’s basically what the entire episode is about; it’s all on the screen: They show us how the doctor arrives on the planet and learns about their system of treating and preventing treatment of patients based on an immoral idea of individual “worth to society”. He’s confronted with a cynical, calculated, bureaucratized system of medical discrimination that condemns people to suffer and die based on what a computer program is saying. One that is also shown to be faulty through the story of Tebbis. That is the dehumanization taking place in the episode.

There you go again, attacking the computer as a villain. It’s a damn tool, it just implements the directives of people. The focus is on the justifiability of Doc’s methods, not the guilt of his targets.

The doctor tries reasoning at first and exhausts all diplomatic avenues.

Good for him. That’s when he’s supposed to stop. When ethical and legal actions don’t accomplish the goal, unethical and illegal actions are still unethical and illegal. “I tried asking nicely” is not a defense.

He tries to trick the system to still be able and treat those in need. And then he uses a non-lethal, targeted tactic to force a change that would save lives. He’s targeting the person directly responsible for implementing these immoral and deadly policies. That’s how the episode presents the premise, not much in the way of speculation necessary. They portray the doctor’s actions as surprising, extreme and morally questionable, but make sure to underscore that his intent is a good one and his actions probably justified.

Let me ask you this, though: Under what moral framework is it just that a medication that could save the very life of a person is instead administered to someone else to prevent their “arterial aging“ (which I take to mean it’s not administered as a life-saving measure)?
Chellik tells the doctor resources are scarce in their society, and that might be so. But doesn’t the fact that you know it’s administered as an anti-aging drug instead of saving lives tell you that it’s an immoral system that the doctor (or anyone in that society) is in their rights to fight against?

Feel free to judge their system as immoral. Does being part of an immoral system mean they have no rights at all? “They’re immoral, I can do what I want” is not a defense. At least, it shouldn’t be.

Note the Doctor doesn’t dispute the right of the society to consider the impact on society in their allocation of medicine. He argues that their calculation is flawed because it doesn’t weight speculation and fact equally. His argument is that you never know what Tebbis might achieve if he gets a chance. That saving the lives of a thousand people with a 1-in-1000 chance of becoming major contributors is worth as much to that society as extending the lives of 100 known contributors. I doubt his math adds up, but it’s not my job to do the math, it’s not the Doctor’s job to do the math, and it’s certainly not the Doctor’s job to poison Chellik for getting the math wrong.

This society chose a different way to allocate meds. Maybe you consider their system immoral. The question I’m asking is whether moral disapproval justifies the means the Doctor uses to fight it.

My only question here is whether the Doctor’s actions are right or wrong. You keep responding by telling me about the guilt of people on the other side. That’s only relevant if you’re justifying the Doctor’s actions as appropriate in the name of punishing the guilty.

So would you say in the Mengele example it would be justified to poison Mengele to extort him to cease torture?

I agree that both situations are not the same, but I still feel they are similar enough and in both situations I feel extreme measures might be justified to achieve a greater good. Chellik is not literally torturing the patients under his supervision, but he’s condemning them to their death when he sends them home. He even takes responsibility for this in the text, saying “They brought me here to make the hard choices they don't want to make.”

They’re not even close to the same. What the Doctor does here is exactly what Mengele is infamous for. Chellik’s actions aren’t even close.

How so? In the abstract, if there is an immoral policy, why does it make that policy more or less immoral if it’s implemented by a monarch vs. a democratic vote?

If you’re talking about violence in the name of revolution, it makes all the difference. The only way to effect a revolution against a democratic government reflecting majority will is for a minority to take control and impose their own sense of right and wrong. Is that what you’re advocating?

The question isn’t whether the policy is moral or immoral, the question is whether the Doctor’s violence and extortion are justified. Or are those the same question?

And in “Justice” he didn’t stop there, but ends up completely ignoring the locals’ laws and customs and enforces his will anyway, under the implied threat of superior technology and force. How does that help us?

Huh? He does quite the opposite. It’s the Edo who keep pointing out that Picard could just take Wesley by force, and Picard who keeps saying he won’t do that because of the Prime Directive. In the end he succeeds by convincing the Edo god with moral reasoning.

Yes. Why is it not?

That usually suggests some kind of meaningful plan to effect change. Doc just stole medicine for one group of Red Level patients. It will be replaced, probably at the expense of other Red Level patients.

You know, there have been cases here of people getting violent in hospitals because they weren’t getting the care they thought they were entitled do. They’re not usually hailed as revolutionaries.

If it were a revolution, it would be Leninist, or French. It usually ends up with “kill the rich,” and when it starts out with this kind of violence, ending up there is a given.

And while it is one thing to advocate for violent revolution to redistribute from the rich to the masses, it is another to cite leading such a rebellion as a justification for the Doctor. Is that what he’s trying to do, inspire a Leninist uprising? “Rise up! You are entitled to medicine! Take it by violence!”?

Can we remember that he is a Doctor? The oath says ”Do no harm,” not “Do no harm unless he’s a bad guy and has access to medicine you need.” There’s a reason lethal injections don’t use doctors: you can’t do harm, even if you think the target is a terrible person and killing him sends a message that is good for society.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tosk]

I'll admit it. If someone had poisoned* Martin Shkreli to avoid that whole thing that happened, I'd probably be okay with it.

I'd also be okay if a random person in the street kicked him in the gonads.



*As in he would need medication to treat it. I'm not wishing death on him.

 

[Michael]

There you go again, attacking the computer as a villain. It’s a damn tool, it just implements the directives of people. The focus is on the justifiability of Doc’s methods, not the guilt of his targets.

Not attacking the computer at all, but the people who programmed and use it. And yes, this is about whether the doctor’s actions are justified (and you just have to also look at the situation to determine whether it is or not). I’ve consistently been saying that I tend toward them being justified, considering the unjust situation he finds on the planet. In my first post in this thread I said: “My view is that his actions weren’t ideal, but that it’s a case where a drastic measure like this might have been justified.” At this point I’m not sure how much clearer I could make that. I think I get that you want me to do a better job explaining why I see it as justified and I apologize if I can’t do better than that.

We obviously disagree on the justifiability of the doctor’s actions and while I think I understand your reasoning, I just don’t see it as cut and dried as you are. And I think that’s totally fine.

Feel free to judge their system as immoral. Does being part of an immoral system mean they have no rights at all?

No, it does not mean that, which is why I never said that.

If you’re talking about violence in the name of revolution, it makes all the difference. The only way to effect a revolution against a democratic government reflecting majority will is for a minority to take control and impose their own sense of right and wrong.

That’s well and good, but still, on the question of whether a policy is moral or immoral alone, how is that determination influenced by how that policy was implemented?

The question isn’t whether the policy is moral or immoral, the question is whether the Doctor’s violence and extortion are justified.

To me the first question informs my thinking on the second. It’s an immoral system and that’s why the doctor’s actions can be seen as justified.

Huh? He does quite the opposite. It’s the Edo who keep pointing out that Picard could just take Wesley by force, and Picard who keeps saying he won’t do that because of the Prime Directive. In the end he succeeds by convincing the Edo god with moral reasoning.

Hm, I would say that’s debatable. I see it as him beaming down to take Wesley, fully aware that he’s disregarding their local laws and assuming the Edo won’t stop him. He’s lucky that the Edo god is letting them leave (thinking it was his pleas that convinced them), but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s knowingly disregarding their laws. I admit, though, that it’s been a while that I’ve seen the episode, so I might be misremembering.

That usually suggests some kind of meaningful plan to effect change. Doc just stole medicine for one group of Red Level patients. It will be replaced, probably at the expense of other Red Level patients.

In my opinion saving the lives of a group of patients is a tangible change he is affecting. Sure, affecting their society on a large scale would be preferable, but that doesn’t mean saving a bunch of lives that would otherwise have perished isn’t change worth affecting. Plus, there’s the possibility that his actions will inspire the society to rise up against the policy at a larger scale.

Still, I would agree that the episode could do a better job giving the viewer an indication of whether the doctor’s actions affected any sort of societal change. (One of the reasons why I initially pointed out I didn’t think the episode was “perfect”.) I think it sucks that it’s left open like that, while I also have to appreciate how it wouldn’t seem very credible or realistic if they were to claim it changed their way of doing things overnight. Maybe just an indication in the end that Voje was inspired by the doctor to start secretly treating patients the Allocator didn’t want him to treat would have been so nice.

And while it is one thing to advocate for violent revolution to redistribute from the rich to the masses, it is another to cite leading such a rebellion as a justification for the Doctor. Is that what he’s trying to do, inspire a Leninist uprising? “Rise up! You are entitled to medicine! Take it by violence!”?

Yes, I think that’s what he’s doing or attempted to do. There’s several instances before his extreme act at the end where he’s trying to inspire an ethical sense of what doctors should do, trying to make them see the immoral nature of the system they are existing in.

Can we remember that he is a Doctor? The oath says ”Do no harm,” not “Do no harm unless he’s a bad guy and has access to medicine you need.” There’s a reason lethal injections don’t use doctors: you can’t do harm, even if you think the target is a terrible person and killing him sends a message that is good for society.

That’s exactly what the writers have the doctor do at the end of the episode; question his own actions and whether it was justified.

Which is why – in case that wasn’t obvious – I think the questions you are posing in this thread are very interesting and in my mind totally valid. Would have been nice to have the doctor spend more time with this question and ponder his actions. I don't know if it would make for an entertaining episode, but it’s interesting to imagine a follow-up episode, where he’s confronted with this ambiguity of his programming allowing him to do harm in this circumstance.

 

[Captrek]

Not attacking the computer at all, but the people who programmed and use it. And yes, this is about whether the doctor’s actions are justified (and you just have to also look at the situation to determine whether it is or not). I’ve consistently been saying that I tend toward them being justified, considering the unjust situation he finds on the planet. In my first post in this thread I said: “My view is that his actions weren’t ideal, but that it’s a case where a drastic measure like this might have been justified.” At this point I’m not sure how much clearer I could make that. I think I get that you want me to do a better job explaining why I see it as justified and I apologize if I can’t do better than that.

We obviously disagree on the justifiability of the doctor’s actions and while I think I understand your reasoning, I just don’t see it as cut and dried as you are. And I think that’s totally fine.


No, it does not mean that, which is why I never said that.


That’s well and good, but still, on the question of whether a policy is moral or immoral alone, how is that determination influenced by how that policy was implemented?


To me the first question informs my thinking on the second. It’s an immoral system and that’s why the doctor’s actions can be seen as justified.


Hm, I would say that’s debatable. I see it as him beaming down to take Wesley, fully aware that he’s disregarding their local laws and assuming the Edo won’t stop him. He’s lucky that the Edo god is letting them leave (thinking it was his pleas that convinced them), but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s knowingly disregarding their laws. I admit, though, that it’s been a while that I’ve seen the episode, so I might be misremembering.


In my opinion saving the lives of a group of patients is a tangible change he is affecting. Sure, affecting their society on a large scale would be preferable, but that doesn’t mean saving a bunch of lives that would otherwise have perished isn’t change worth affecting. Plus, there’s the possibility that his actions will inspire the society to rise up against the policy at a larger scale.

Still, I would agree that the episode could do a better job giving the viewer an indication of whether the doctor’s actions affected any sort of societal change. (One of the reasons why I initially pointed out I didn’t think the episode was “perfect”.) I think it sucks that it’s left open like that, while I also have to appreciate how it wouldn’t seem very credible or realistic if they were to claim it changed their way of doing things overnight. Maybe just an indication in the end that Voje was inspired by the doctor to start secretly treating patients the Allocator didn’t want him to treat would have been so nice.


Yes, I think that’s what he’s doing or attempted to do. There’s several instances before his extreme act at the end where he’s trying to inspire an ethical sense of what doctors should do, trying to make them see the immoral nature of the system they are existing in.

We know nothing of this world outside the hospital. You stipulated that for all we know this society is a democracy that passed majority-supported-but-immoral laws. You’re advocating a Leninist uprising against a democratic government for the sake of universal health care? And if the people don’t vote for universal health care… well, the Soviet Union didn’t have to worry about votes either.

Have you given any thought to how much death and destruction would be caused by a Leninist uprising? Doc’s trying to make that happen… so medicine will be fairly distributed?

That’s exactly what the writers have the doctor do at the end of the episode; question his own actions and whether it was justified.

Which is why – in case that wasn’t obvious – I think the questions you are posing in this thread are very interesting and in my mind totally valid. Would have been nice to have the doctor spend more time with this question and ponder his actions. I don't know if it would make for an entertaining episode, but it’s interesting to imagine a follow-up episode, where he’s confronted with this ambiguity of his programming allowing him to do harm in this circumstance.

The question is whether his actions in this episode are justified or not, and if so how. The fact that he himself questions whether they are justified (and decides they are) is not a justification.

I’ve gotten supposed mitigations (if Chellik hadn’t chickened Doc would have), character testimony (he felt bad about it), and moral judgments on his adversaries. These are not things one does to evaluate an action. These are things one does to defend someone they perceive under attack.

 

[Michael]

We know nothing of this world outside the hospital. You stipulated that for all we know this society is a democracy that passed majority-supported-but-immoral laws. You’re advocating a Leninist uprising against a democratic government for the sake of universal health care? And if the people don’t vote for universal health care… well, the Soviet Union didn’t have to worry about votes either.

Have you given any thought to how much death and destruction would be caused by a Leninist uprising? Doc’s trying to make that happen… so medicine will be fairly distributed?

I admit at this point I’m confused by what it is you are on about, to be frank. If you can’t see how “so medicine will be fairly distributed” is a bit of a mischaracterization/oversimplification downplaying what the doctor wanted to achieve, I’m not sure we’re even talking about the same thing. It seems to me like you are saying their people shouldn’t ever try to get themselves out of unfair, immoral circumstances that are killing them if they are not worthy enough to society (as determined by some computer program of questionable integrity). Their society might be a democracy, a monarchy or something else entirely — it doesn’t change the situation as presented in the episode. A situation that is so unfair and immoral that people are justified in fighting it. How that attempt to change the system might fare is a completely different story. You insist that it would cause considerable death and destruction, but I don’t see how that is evident.

The question is whether his actions in this episode are justified or not, and if so how.

I get that. And for the umpteenth time, yes, I personally believe there’s reason to think they were justified. Can you please try and stop telling me that same thing over and over? It’s starting to feel like you think I’m a fucking idiot. I repeatedly provided my reasoning for why I think his actions can be seen as justified, demonstrating that there were compelling circumstances that made the action appropriate and necessary. Respectfully, I realize that you don’t see this as a valid justification. But please let’s not default to acting like I haven’t provided my reasoning for the justification with every new post you’re composing.

The fact that he himself questions whether they are justified (and decides they are) is not a justification.

Oh, for fuck’s sake, nor did I ever claim that as a justification. Can you please try and not put words into my mouth? That’s rather frustrating. I obviously was attempting to strike a conciliatory tone with those sections you’ve quoted, pointing out that the questions you are asking are interesting and basically the same that the episode is pondering (even if not totally satisfyingly). Why the hell do you feel the need to turn that into me claiming something I’m not even saying anywhere?

I’ve gotten supposed mitigations (if Chellik hadn’t chickened Doc would have), character testimony (he felt bad about it), and moral judgments on his adversaries. These are not things one does to evaluate an action.

Sure they are. You absolutely look at motivations, intentions, surrounding circumstances, context and actual consequences when evaluating an action. I'm sorry, but I just believe you are mistaken on this one.