Janeway's Decision to Kill Tuvix

[teya]

(An aside here... The only way current transplant law fits as a precedent for this case is in the cases of live donors. We cannot force a living donor to give up a portion of his or her body to save another--not even an identical twin--if the donor forbids it. No one can force you to risk your life to save another).

You are not quite right, the law in the US and Canada expressly forbid the use of anyone's body even after death unless permission has been given either by the person who gave permission before his death, or the permission of the next of kin afterward.

I'm aware of that. I am the widow of a transplant patient and I did my post-grad thesis in medical ethics in transplant medicine.

What I said is that the only current transplant medicine precedents that have any bearing on this episode would be live-donor transplantation (kidneys and portions of livers can be taken from live donors).

Tuvix is alive.

 

[Melakon]

I know this has been brought up before, and I know people are rejecting it out of hand based on personal or moral or legalistic interpretations, but...

I still see the episode as a variation on the ancient possession stories from fables, fantasy, supernatural, and science fiction genres, with a distinctive Star Trek twist this time around. In such stories, the object is always (well usually) to get the original person back. With "Tuvix" it's still that same basic story, but this time they just want us to think about it. It doesn't matter what we believe. Just that we consider the alternatives. There is no right and wrong moment.

 

[teya]

I actually find it funny that we in the scifi community discuss these ethical issues to death, and when they come into the mainstream they don't even create more than a "huh".

I'm specifically thinking of some news stories on cloning, a few years ago, that generated no angst as far as the network news anchors were concerned. I recall one of them suggesting, when a cloning story was introduced, that "nothing will ever be the same again" and my heckle from the peanut gallery was... "sure it will... it will be the same over and over until the copies degrade beyond use."

Well... I'm being extreme.. I do remember back in the 90's how a family got some guff from the public by having another baby to save the life of their teenaged daughter who needed a transplant.

It's a good point you make, that the 'mainstream' wouldn't bother to think much on an issue like this, while we're going at it tooth and nail on our respective positions. To a lot of people the closest thing to an ethical dilemma on tv is who backstabbed who to win at the latest reality show. Nothing wrong with that, even if I find it disappointing at times.

Cloning... well sooner or later this will become practical to the point where we see it often enough and some sort of consensus regulating it will have to be reached.

I never heard of that case you cited in the 90's... and I gotta say I find that kind of disturbing. That second kid has as much of a right to live as the first to me. I can understand the desperation to save one's child... but at the same time, you're killing your own child to save one you just happen to like more. Ugh.. life is not something to be casually interchanged like a part in a car.

The case cited was dissected and discussed in my medical ethics class--it was current news at the time.

It involved a kid who needed a bone marrow transplant. Her parents conceived a child in the hope that the child would be a good match.

A bone marrow transplant uses a live donor. The risks are minimal to the donor, and primarily related to general anesthesia. The patient is put under, multiple taps are done into the iliac crests to harvest the marrow.

It is perfectly legal, as the parents have the right to make the decision for both children.

The ethical questions in that case came down more on the psychological effect on the donor child. What if the procedure didn't work and her sister died anyway? Would the circumstances of her birth change the way her parents viewed her? Would she be a child loved as much as the sibling or was she simply replacement parts?

An extract from The Lancet from 1997 follows up on a similar case in the UK in 1987. The final paragraph points to the biggest ethical question in these cases: when is the donor tested? The medical community overwhelming says to wait until after the child is born, not in utero, both because of risk to the fetus from the procedure, and because there are those who would abort the fetus if it wasn't a match.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)63774-9/fulltext

 

[R. Star]

I actually find it funny that we in the scifi community discuss these ethical issues to death, and when they come into the mainstream they don't even create more than a "huh".

I'm specifically thinking of some news stories on cloning, a few years ago, that generated no angst as far as the network news anchors were concerned. I recall one of them suggesting, when a cloning story was introduced, that "nothing will ever be the same again" and my heckle from the peanut gallery was... "sure it will... it will be the same over and over until the copies degrade beyond use."

Well... I'm being extreme.. I do remember back in the 90's how a family got some guff from the public by having another baby to save the life of their teenaged daughter who needed a transplant.

It's a good point you make, that the 'mainstream' wouldn't bother to think much on an issue like this, while we're going at it tooth and nail on our respective positions. To a lot of people the closest thing to an ethical dilemma on tv is who backstabbed who to win at the latest reality show. Nothing wrong with that, even if I find it disappointing at times.

Cloning... well sooner or later this will become practical to the point where we see it often enough and some sort of consensus regulating it will have to be reached.

I never heard of that case you cited in the 90's... and I gotta say I find that kind of disturbing. That second kid has as much of a right to live as the first to me. I can understand the desperation to save one's child... but at the same time, you're killing your own child to save one you just happen to like more. Ugh.. life is not something to be casually interchanged like a part in a car.

The case cited was dissected and discussed in my medical ethics class--it was current news at the time.

It involved a kid who needed a bone marrow transplant. Her parents conceived a child in the hope that the child would be a good match.

A bone marrow transplant uses a live donor. The risks are minimal to the donor, and primarily related to general anesthesia. The patient is put under, multiple taps are done into the iliac crests to harvest the marrow.

It is perfectly legal, as the parents have the right to make the decision for both children.

The ethical questions in that case came down more on the psychological effect on the donor child. What if the procedure didn't work and her sister died anyway? Would the circumstances of her birth change the way her parents viewed her? Would she be a child loved as much as the sibling or was she simply replacement parts?

An extract from The Lancet from 1997 follows up on a similar case in the UK in 1987. The final paragraph points to the biggest ethical question in these cases: when is the donor tested? The medical community overwhelming says to wait until after the child is born, not in utero, both because of risk to the fetus from the procedure, and because there are those who would abort the fetus if it wasn't a match.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)63774-9/fulltext

Hmm, that's different then. It sounded worse the way it was worded originally. And in the 90's well... let's just say I was more interested in other things than current events.

Thank you for the explanation. The psychological issues on the younger child... well, I suppose there could be some and something the parents would have to factor in. I would have to agree until after the child is born to start testing.

 

[Brit]

I know this has been brought up before, and I know people are rejecting it out of hand based on personal or moral or legalistic interpretations, but...

I still see the episode as a variation on the ancient possession stories from fables, fantasy, supernatural, and science fiction genres, with a distinctive Star Trek twist this time around. In such stories, the object is always (well usually) to get the original person back. With "Tuvix" it's still that same basic story, but this time they just want us to think about it. It doesn't matter what we believe. Just that we consider the alternatives. There is no right and wrong moment.

This is a very good take on the problem, and one worth thinking about.

And Taya, Tuvok and Nelix are alive too, and they were alive first. Like I said any argument you can make can be just as easily applied the other way.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes, but in order to restore Neelix and Tuvok you had to murder another sentient being.

And haven't we already discussed TNG's "Measure of a Man" which established that Data (and by extension other beings) have the right to determine their own path.

Tuvix had the right to live, It wasn't Janeway's life to take. Accidents happen.

 

[Melakon]

But this is exactly why I prefaced the comment with "I know people are rejecting it out of hand based on personal or moral or legalistic interpretations".

The episode is asking the viewer to put themselves in Janeway's shoes. There's no right or wrong answer, which is the entire point of the episode.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's no right or wrong answer, which is the entire point of the episode.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Guy Gardener]

However far less far-fetched than the episode of Grey's Anatomy that had a doctor cutting the LVAD line of the patient she'd fallen in love with to move him to the top of the transplant list--and didn't lose her medical license in the process. That one really was beyond the Pale. And was the episode that turned me off medical dramas for good. I just can't suspend disbelief that much,

Last year Meredith Grey had a nightmare, that posited the existence of a mirror universe where her mother had left her father thirty years earlier to be with Chief Webber, who had raised her to be a good girl. Everything was skew. They were all hilariously ####ing the wrong people. Over lunch our heroes mention "Izzy" and the LVAD, but in this case they called her a crazy lady who Merideth had ratted out instantly, who was now still on the run from the law with Denny's missing bloody heart in a satchel at her side.

In the case of the Monday Mornings episode, they did go before a judge to sort this out, who was delighted about how confusing and fresh this case was... But then it was discovered that the suicide was not a suicide, and that a junkie had pushed a go gooder grad student off a roof and everyones opinions on everyone involved changed.

 

[Brit]

Yes, but in order to restore Neelix and Tuvok you had to murder another sentient being.

And haven't we already discussed TNG's "Measure of a Man" which established that Data (and by extension other beings) have the right to determine their own path.

Tuvix had the right to live, It wasn't Janeway's life to take. Accidents happen.

And to allow that being to live you have to murder Tuvok and Neelix. All arguments can be easily reversed, because there is no answer. Only different points of view.

 

[R. Star]

Yes, but in order to restore Neelix and Tuvok you had to murder another sentient being.

And haven't we already discussed TNG's "Measure of a Man" which established that Data (and by extension other beings) have the right to determine their own path.

Tuvix had the right to live, It wasn't Janeway's life to take. Accidents happen.

And to allow that being to live you have to murder Tuvok and Neelix. All arguments can be easily reversed, because there is no answer. Only different points of view.

No... no one murdered Tuvok and Neelix. Tuvok and Neelix died in an accident, creating Tuvix. Tuvix was deliberately murdered to bring Tuvok and Neelix back to life.

There's all the moral difference in the world between an accident that was no one's fault and willfully murdering someone against their will.

 

[Guy Gardener]

There's no right or wrong answer, which is the entire point of the episode.

Ain't that the truth.

Nah.

The writers stumbled into this. When they were putting pen to paper they would have assumed that EVERYONEINTHEUNIVERSE would respect Kathryn for making the hard choice because it was the right choice.

Her shit does not stink.

Is this an episode about a Captain with no correct choice to pick from, a story about a captain cheating to defy shitty options or a Captain going off the rails?

If this is the third from up there, then what this episode is actually comparable to In the Pale Moonlight, where you have to ask not if what the Captain did was right or wrong, but if after they did something WRONG, if what she did is forgiveable?

 

[teya]

However far less far-fetched than the episode of Grey's Anatomy that had a doctor cutting the LVAD line of the patient she'd fallen in love with to move him to the top of the transplant list--and didn't lose her medical license in the process. That one really was beyond the Pale. And was the episode that turned me off medical dramas for good. I just can't suspend disbelief that much,

Last year Meredith Grey had a nightmare, that posited the existence of a mirror universe where her mother had left her father thirty years earlier to be with Chief Webber, who had raised her to be a good girl. Everything was skew. They were all hilariously ####ing the wrong people. Over lunch our heroes mention "Izzy" and the LVAD, but in this case they called her a crazy lady who Merideth had ratted out instantly, who was now still on the run from the law with Denny's missing bloody heart in a satchel at her side.

I never know whether to take you seriously or not... Was this an episode? If so, awesome. If not, you should be writing for that show.

I could have accepted that the hospital tried to cover Izzy's idiocy in order to preserve their status. That absolutely no other staff member stepped forward to expose the mess was what was totally unbelievable.

In the case of the Monday Mornings episode, they did go before a judge to sort this out, who was delighted about how confusing and fresh this case was... But then it was discovered that the suicide was not a suicide, and that a junkie had pushed a go gooder grad student off a roof and everyones opinions on everyone involved changed.

*sigh* Kelley wrote himself into a corner again. And kind of pulled a "Tuvix." Unfortunate...

 

[R. Star]

There's no right or wrong answer, which is the entire point of the episode.

Ain't that the truth.

Nah.

The writers stumbled into this. When they were putting pen to paper they would have assumed that EVERYONEINTHEUNIVERSE would respect Kathryn from making the hard choice because it was the right choice.

Her shit does not stink.

Is this an episode about a Captain with no correct choice to pick from, a story about a captain cheating to defy shitty options or a Captain going off the rails?

If this is the third from up there, then what this episode is actually comparable to In the Pale Moonlight, where you have to ask not if what the Captain did was right or wrong, but if after they did something WRONG, if wjat she did is forgivable?

Yeah, the Voyager writers, especially Jeri Taylor, put Janeway in the position to "make the tough call" so often, she just became a parody at best and down right silly at worst.

 

[teya]

There's no right or wrong answer, which is the entire point of the episode.

Ain't that the truth.

Nah.

The writers stumbled into this. When they were putting pen to paper they would have assumed that EVERYONEINTHEUNIVERSE would respect Kathryn for making the hard choice because it was the right choice.

Her shit does not stink.

Is this an episode about a Captain with no correct choice to pick from, a story about a captain cheating to defy shitty options or a Captain going off the rails?

If this is the third from up there, then what this episode is actually comparable to In the Pale Moonlight, where you have to ask not if what the Captain did was right or wrong, but if after they did something WRONG, if what she did is forgiveable?

You win the internets today.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I never know whether to take you seriously or not... Was this an episode? If so, awesome. If not, you should be writing for that show.

I could have accepted that the hospital tried to cover Izzy's idiocy in order to preserve their status. That absolutely no other staff member stepped forward to expose the mess was what was totally unbelievable.

Season 8 episode 13.

Here's some pictures and critical analysis

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2012/02/greys-anatomy-review-meet-meredith-webber/?ModPagespeed=noscript

And here's the imdb listing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2187691/

Back to reality (snigger.)

You'll recall that when questioned that all the medical students insisted (except Alex, who said "screw this") that it was they who cut the LVAD, and then Izzy gave the hospital 8 million dollars to start a free clinic, which has probably since been closed due to awful management and the many routine disasters the hospital attracts.

Dr Hahn (blonde lesbian number one.) when she found out about the LVAD wire (years/seasons later) because it directly impacted on one of her patients at her old in competition hospital went mental and started redemanding that everyone involved got fired.

 

[JanewayRulz!]

I actually find it funny that we in the scifi community discuss these ethical issues to death, and when they come into the mainstream they don't even create more than a "huh".

I'm specifically thinking of some news stories on cloning, a few years ago, that generated no angst as far as the network news anchors were concerned. I recall one of them suggesting, when a cloning story was introduced, that "nothing will ever be the same again" and my heckle from the peanut gallery was... "sure it will... it will be the same over and over until the copies degrade beyond use."

Well... I'm being extreme.. I do remember back in the 90's how a family got some guff from the public by having another baby to save the life of their teenaged daughter who needed a transplant.

It's a good point you make, that the 'mainstream' wouldn't bother to think much on an issue like this, while we're going at it tooth and nail on our respective positions. To a lot of people the closest thing to an ethical dilemma on tv is who backstabbed who to win at the latest reality show. Nothing wrong with that, even if I find it disappointing at times.

Cloning... well sooner or later this will become practical to the point where we see it often enough and some sort of consensus regulating it will have to be reached.

I never heard of that case you cited in the 90's... and I gotta say I find that kind of disturbing. That second kid has as much of a right to live as the first to me. I can understand the desperation to save one's child... but at the same time, you're killing your own child to save one you just happen to like more. Ugh.. life is not something to be casually interchanged like a part in a car.

I was off a little, it was 1988.

http://www.today.com/id/43265160/ns/today-good_news/t/born-save-sisters-life-shes-glad-i-am-family/

Some of the concerns IIRC were along the lines of what would the baby feel (once grown), if the transplant wasn't successful and her sister died "anyway". Would she feel like a failure to her family, her parents? Would the parents not love her "as much" if despite all their heroics their first daughter died anyway?

Lots of questions, as the Doctor in the clip suggested, questions that get different answers when you look at it emotionally instead of "simply" ethically.

Its nice to know that everything for these two girls, worked out in the end.

 

[Melakon]

I remember the hubbub over that case.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes, but in order to restore Neelix and Tuvok you had to murder another sentient being.

And haven't we already discussed TNG's "Measure of a Man" which established that Data (and by extension other beings) have the right to determine their own path.

Tuvix had the right to live, It wasn't Janeway's life to take. Accidents happen.

And to allow that being to live you have to murder Tuvok and Neelix. All arguments can be easily reversed, because there is no answer. Only different points of view.

No... no one murdered Tuvok and Neelix. Tuvok and Neelix died in an accident, creating Tuvix. Tuvix was deliberately murdered to bring Tuvok and Neelix back to life.

There's all the moral difference in the world between an accident that was no one's fault and willfully murdering someone against their will.

Agreed.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm a bit wigged by the moral pearing some of us have decided is allowed if there is no design behind Tuvix's conception.

B'Elanna at one time encouraged the Doctor to repeatedly induce brain damage so that she might continue having an entertaining dream, nothing about the fate of the universe, just a lark, with no fear or concern about how low her IQ got on the other side of this adventure.

If she had become a simpleton who took delight in being a simpleton, would the Doctor and Janeway feel compelled to re-inflate her intellect against this new B'Elanna's adamant instructions?

You know, like what happened to Tuvok in season 6.