Disabled Captain?

[JeffinOakland]

All of the Captains so far have been capable of handling themselves in a fight. Could ST have a physically disabled captain on board a vessel or station? If you were an admiral, would you feel comfortable with a physically disabled Captain on a ship or station?

 

[Timo]

In TNG, certainly - captains aren't expected to get physical. In TOS, there are supposed to be regulations against starship COs getting into situations where physical prowess should matter, but at least two skippers (Kirk and Tracey) blatantly violate those regulations.

Yet what is "physically disabled"? Picard is a poorer pugilist than Kirk, so is Picard disabled? Should he have been forced to retire the moment he failed to knock down Standard Holographic Assailant #47 in the monthly test?

Kirk lost fistfights to adversaries, too. Should he have been forced to retire or then agree to having phasers implanted in his forearms and a photon torpedo launcher fitted in his pants?

I don't see a great need for a "physical" captain even in TOS. OTOH, a captain wearing a well-armed and well-shielded flying exoskeleton because he happens to be quadriplegic... Him I'd feel much safer serving with on landing party duty than the weakling Kirk!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[angry apple panda]

I feel like in the 24th century and beyond, I would be surprised if there wasn't some bionic solution to, say--quadriplegia, for instance. Certainly by the 24th century, we see people with bionic limbs. And the Soong-type androids have shown that Starfleet must have a general idea of how to construct artificial nervous systems for people with neurological disorders that impair movement. That notion in "The Menagerie" about how scientists can't seem to hack the brain by that period in time seems absurd when you see how advanced brain scanning techniques are getting as of 2016.

If they couldn't do it by Kirk's time, I'd imagine they could do it by the 24th century, whether by reverse engineering Borg tech or asking the Enterprise computer what the hell Barclay told it to do in "The Nth Degree" or otherwise. So, quadriplegia shouldn't technically exist by that time period. Maybe genetic therapies have all but eliminated hereditary nervous disorders like Huntington's Disease or Parkinson's Disease and the like as well.

One thing DS9's "Melora" had going for it was the idea of humanoids who are unsuited for Earth-style gravity. The episode was somewhat clumsy, but frankly I feel like this kind of situation should have happened more often. It seems silly that lifeforms from 1G worlds are the vast majority of lifeforms in Starfleet. And there's a whole plethora of lifeforms in Trek history that breathe alternate gasses that make adaptation into Starfleet difficult. You've got the Benzites, who breathe a chlorine mixture (although some Benzites get genetic therapy that allows them to not use the inhaler), the Zaranites that breathe fluorine, the Megarites that apparently are water breathers (whom can also get injections to allow air breathing for a week). I would have loved to see more of that. Imagine Megarite starships that are entirely filled with water!

Bottom line: I think a lot of Earth disabilities will be in some way compensated for by the 24th century. I think the best way to depict this going forward would be to depict alien races that have problems adapting to Starfleet environmental standards, like "Melora," although I would hope it would be demonstrated with a bit more writing finesse.

Now, to answer the OP's question: if I was an admiral?

I would find every way I could to make an otherwise qualified officer able to do the job. If that means changing elements of the vessel to make it more accessibility friendly or spending resources to provide this person with as much automation or state-of-the-art exoskeletal enhancement as possible. Good captains are a premium that can't be wasted, and Starfleet is a progressive organization that looks past things like perceived disability.

 

[Timo]

As an admiral, I'd have to look at the "compensated for" angle long and hard and decide whether I were morally justified in stopping at that. A captain whose failing heart is repaired to human standards - or a captain who has three hearts for combat redundancy? A captain who can knock down a Klingon - or a captain who can knock down five? What right do I have to send out a crew whose commanding officer isn't Khan's smarter sister in a warp-capable endoskeleton, when we can rebuild her (we have the technology, and the six-million-credit price tag no longer is an issue, either)?

If I'm settling for "compensated for", am I not being chauvinistic towards a rather arbitrary human norm, for ill-defensible reasons? Why am I requiring "compensation" in the first place?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

For someone to get through the Academy and climb the ranks to Captain, they must clearly be capable, even if weren't physically. We've already seen Geordi La Forge have an impressive career (even reaching the rank of Captain in an alternate timeline) despite being blind, and Melora Pazlar was a promising young officer even though she was confined to a wheelchair in standard gravity.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, can we tell? Most of our skipper heroes have distinguished themselves after attaining commanding positions. The bulk might be doing poorly on "capability", and Starfleet would be satisfied with that, knowing it gets enough polished gems eventually even though the unpolished ones are a minority among the pebbles.

Certainly we can't tell that a physically disabled person would be required to be "capable" in order to have a career. LaForge only made an impact on Picard personally, not having advanced his career much before Picard stepped in. Did Pazlar need to be an exceptional individual to overcome the handicap of being an exceptional individual? We just can't tell.

What we can tell is that certain very specific types of disability call for compensating qualities: Wes Crusher apparently faced a much, much harder Academy entry exam due to his young age than, say, Nog did.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Finn]

We had an admiral in a "wheelchair" on TNG.

I would assume that many ailments, syndromes and other conditions such as MS and Cerebral Palsy, that reduces motility would be mostly non-existent. But they were likely replaced by more exotic conditions, things like that.

Spinal injuries still exists as we saw with Worf....

Edit: I just remembered, what about those from low-gravity worlds like Melora? She'd have hated the term "disabled", but her species would require accommodations...

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Two things irk me about questions like this:

1. By the 24th century, most types of disability are either curable or preempted and fixed before birth.

2. I don't think Trek should follow a 'tick-the-box' directive. I work in the museum sector and I have read [and written] a lot about aspects of inclusion, but the issue with inclusion becomes when you are simply doing it for the sake of it. In this sense, it could easily become "Hey guys! Look our captain is disabled! Look at how inclusive we are! Isn't that great?" but by episode 47 it's "..uhh..we still haven't actually made this captain a real person, or given much character depth but...did we mention he is disabled?" which in turn becomes patronising and actually quite exclusionary.

Many people tend to want many groups focused on in Trek [which is only natural: we want women! we want LGBT! we want black/asian etc] but unless it is handled properly it risks becoming a cheap gimmick.

 

[angry apple panda]

I mean, basically, it comes down to the idea that physical disability should never be a barrier towards being a Starfleet captain, unless anyone is specifically put in danger because of it, because certainly Starfleet has the resources to make it work in some fashion. It's not as if a talented captain who had his or her legs dismembered would ever be told by Starfleet, "Well, our fourth quarter budget projections look bleak, and we're cutting costs left and right, and we just can't afford the bionics for you. Oops." They would just replicate some parts, put an M.D., a few nurses, and a neurobionics expert in a surgery room with the captain for a couple hours and solve the problem. It's a post-scarcity society. If a talented captain happens to come from a planet where everyone is a blob monster, Starfleet would absolutely contribute the resources towards making it easier for them to be the captain.

Essentially, all I'm saying is that in today's society, there's a line to be drawn somewhere where completely integrating absolutely everyone in every conceivable situation is not worth the resources. There is such an abundance of these resources in Star Trek so this line doesn't even matter. Starfleet can absolutely afford to be fully accessible when necessary, except in perhaps extreme, absurd situations ("Well, the captain is made of antimatter, sir. Are you sure it'll be safe!?")

2. I don't think Trek should follow a 'tick-the-box' directive. I work in the museum sector and I have read [and written] a lot about aspects of inclusion, but the issue with inclusion becomes when you are simply doing it for the sake of it. In this sense, it could easily become "Hey guys! Look our captain is disabled! Look at how inclusive we are! Isn't that great?" but by episode 47 it's "..uhh..we still haven't actually made this captain a real person, or given much character depth but...did we mention he is disabled?" which in turn becomes patronising and actually quite exclusionary.

Well, I can't think of a situation so far in Trek where a character was added just so the character can go, "Hey! Check it out! I am a minority!" I think the original goal was a diverse cast that showed people from all walks of life. Poor characterizations of said characters were due to the constraints of having a large cast on episodic TV, not so much the "token minority" effect. Uhura never ran around and exclaimed, "I'm black!" all the time. If we do have characters that are disabled in some way, or gay, or any other minority not shown yet, I have no doubt that the writers are at least self-aware enough to not clumsily write a character in just to be "the gay character" or "the disabled one." We've basically never had that happen. Geordi was in some ways disabled, and his character was multi-dimensional, so there's at least precedent for this to not go awry. As a member of the queer community, I do agree that having token characters is bad. My point is that we've mostly dodged that bullet so far and I don't think the fear of this is warranted.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I mean, basically, it comes down to the idea that physical disability should never be a barrier towards being a Starfleet captain, unless anyone is specifically put in danger because of it, because certainly Starfleet has the resources to make it work in some fashion. It's not as if a talented captain who had his or her legs dismembered would ever be told by Starfleet, "Well, our fourth quarter budget projections look bleak, and we're cutting costs left and right, and we just can't afford the bionics for you. Oops." They would just replicate some parts, put an M.D., a few nurses, and a neurobionics expert in a surgery room with the captain for a couple hours and solve the problem. It's a post-scarcity society. If a talented captain happens to come from a planet where everyone is a blob monster, Starfleet would absolutely contribute the resources towards making it easier for them to be the captain.

Essentially, all I'm saying is that in today's society, there's a line to be drawn somewhere where completely integrating absolutely everyone in every conceivable situation is not worth the resources. There is such an abundance of these resources in Star Trek so this line doesn't even matter. Starfleet can absolutely afford to be fully accessible when necessary, except in perhaps extreme, absurd situations ("Well, the captain is made of antimatter, sir. Are you sure it'll be safe!?")



Well, I can't think of a situation so far in Trek where a character was added just so the character can go, "Hey! Check it out! I am a minority!" I think the original goal was a diverse cast that showed people from all walks of life. Poor characterizations of said characters were due to the constraints of having a large cast on episodic TV, not so much the "token minority" effect. Uhura never ran around and exclaimed, "I'm black!" all the time. If we do have characters that are disabled in some way, or gay, or any other minority not shown yet, I have no doubt that the writers are at least self-aware enough to not clumsily write a character in just to be "the gay character" or "the disabled one." We've basically never had that happen. Geordi was in some ways disabled, and his character was multi-dimensional, so there's at least precedent for this to not go awry. As a member of the queer community, I do agree that having token characters is bad. My point is that we've mostly dodged that bullet so far and I don't think the fear of this is warranted.

While I do see your point, the things we have had so far haven't been anything special [as in, isn't hard to write]. A black woman. A female captain. A black captain. This is all easy stuff. Writing a character that is disabled is much different [your point about Geordi is interesting, as his disability is more of a plot device that never actually impacts on anything unless they want it to...he is 'blind' but he can see just fine], having, say, a captain in a wheelchair would have a huge impact upon a series.

I think having a character with a severe disability [such as being wheelchair bound] would certainly risk the charcter becoming two dimensional. Now I want to be very clear, I'm not saying "it'd be hard to write so there should be no disabled people" because I would then be guilty of reducing said character to just their affliction. What I am saying is I think there is a risk in a TV show of writers...'going to the well too often' in that regard. [As in, numerous episodes where said character is shown overcoming said affliction. Whereas, in my opinion, it is healthier to portray the character living a normal life and not constantly focusing on the disability]

 

[JeffinOakland]

What if a fight is thrust upon a disabled captain? For instance: a hostile force beams aboard and attempts to take over the ship and hand-to-hand fighting ensues. What if the captain literally can't fight? S/he's that physically disabled. Would Starfleet even allow for that possibility?

 

[Zonker]

They could write a character that's disabled and rather than curing or nullifying their disability with technology, then give them some other advantage instead. For example they could have a wheelchair bound captain with telepathic abilities. Personally I think Patrick Stewart would be perfect for a role like that, it's a shame they already used him for Captain Picard.

 

[angry apple panda]

I think having a character with a severe disability [such as being wheelchair bound] would certainly risk the charcter becoming two dimensional. Now I want to be very clear, I'm not saying "it'd be hard to write so there should be no disabled people" because I would then be guilty of reducing said character to just their affliction. What I am saying is I think there is a risk in a TV show of writers...'going to the well too often' in that regard. [As in, numerous episodes where said character is shown overcoming said affliction. Whereas, in my opinion, it is healthier to portray the character living a normal life and not constantly focusing on the disability]

I agree, and I think any competent writer today would be self-aware enough to realize when they are writing token characters without deeper substance. Star Trek is all about showcasing diversity, so I think Trek's writers have always been at least partially aware enough to prevent this from happening, at least with the main cast.

What if a fight is thrust upon a disabled captain? For instance: a hostile force beams aboard and attempts to take over the ship and hand-to-hand fighting ensues. What if the captain literally can't fight? S/he's that physically disabled. Would Starfleet even allow for that possibility?

I don't think these situations would happen. If a character was so physically disabled that Starfleet couldn't accommodate them without putting everyone at risk, that person would not be a captain. Starfleet is surely cognizant enough to not put anyone in severe danger under the guise of inclusivity. That's never happened. I do think that the Trek universe has enough technology to accommodate people even in the severest of cases. In a sense, this means these people are not technically disabled anymore, but it does mean that they do partially rely on, for instance, cybernetics, to function as an officer. This itself could lead to interesting plot threads, as long as it isn't relied on in every episode. Otherwise, we burn out, like with holodeck stories, or the Borg.

 

[Timo]

What if a fight is thrust upon a disabled captain? For instance: a hostile force beams aboard and attempts to take over the ship and hand-to-hand fighting ensues. What if the captain literally can't fight? S/he's that physically disabled. Would Starfleet even allow for that possibility?

But captains can't fight anyway. If somebody beams aboard and empties a primitive submachine gun on the CO, he dies. If somebody tosses a grenade, he dies. If a Species 8472 praying mantis spears him, he dies. If Q sends Robin Hood to the bridge and the affable rogue discharges his longbow, the captain dies. Why draw an arbitrary limit at fisticuffs?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kevman7987]

I'm sure if anyone with a severe enough disability that it couldn't be fixed by 24th century medical science probably isn't going to be placed shipboard period. Especially if it could endanger the rest of the crew. Also don't forget, Starfleet does have much safer space-based and planet-side starbases that need command crews.

 

[JeffinOakland]

But captains can't fight anyway. If somebody beams aboard and empties a primitive submachine gun on the CO, he dies. If somebody tosses a grenade, he dies. If a Species 8472 praying mantis spears him, he dies. If Q sends Robin Hood to the bridge and the affable rogue discharges his longbow, the captain dies. Why draw an arbitrary limit at fisticuffs?

Timo Saloniemi

Because the questions I asked are hypothetical. Hence the "what if".

 

[The Old Mixer]

If the captain's disabled, the bridge is invaded, and the rest of the bridge crew can't handle it, how much difference can the captain be expected to make? Will a flying butt slam turn the tide of the skirmish?

 

[JeffinOakland]

If the captain's disabled, the bridge is invaded, and the rest of the bridge crew can't handle it, how much difference can the captain be expected to make? Will a flying butt slam turn the tide of the skirmish?

So that's an argument for allowing a severely disabled captain onboard a starship.

 

[RandyS]

Yes there should be. "Disabled" means "limited", not "helpless".

 

[matthunter]

Given that the Enterprise-D has fucking whales serving aboard, I don't think this is an issue. Hitting a Klingon with a jet of water from your blowhole isn't going to help much.

Likewise, what if a Horta wants to join Starfleet? Or a Medusan?