I just rewatched Ethics, from season 5. I enjoyed the profound issues the episode explored, but I was left with a nagging doubt about Captain Picard. Picard has always been strongly in favor of respecting other cultures and beliefs. He has also always been strongly in favor of protecting and preserving life. In the episode of Ethics, these two aspects are brought into conflict... but Picard falls swiftly and easily on the side of respecting Worf's decision to die. I can't decide if this is right or not, and the more I think about it, the more it nags at me. Picard should have been more conflicted. I feel like the writers needed a part to voice that side of the issue and they chose Picard. I'm not convinced that this is how the Picard we had known up to that point would have behaved. What are your thoughts on this?
I think it makes sense with the immersion Picard had previously had into Klingon culture. I don't think it conflicts with Picard's respect for life. He didn't want to murder Worf. Keeping a person alive against their will by strapping them down somewhere isn't exactly respecting life. All he can do is try to influence Worf.
I think the whole point of the episode is that it's not for you to decide that, & that's the side of this Picard falls on, but I admit it is a bit surprising to see him so cavalier about it, to the point that I don't even think he goes to Worf to say anything at all about it (Which is weird to say the least. Wouldn't he have at least said something to this man who'd served with him, before he was dead?) I don't however think it's out of character for him to be objective enough to see that this isn't his choice, in any way though. Notice that the point is never raised with Picard, like it is with Riker, to help Worf die. Being objectively neutral & being complicit are not the same thing, though you may have heard otherwise lol. Riker is being asked to be complicit, & I doubt any of them, including Picard would've gone along with that. It's Troi & Crusher that are vehemently on the opposed side of this, too much so imho, especially in Crusher's case. If she has beef with the other doctor's lack of ethics in her practice, that's one thing & I can support her being right there, but if she intends to shame Worf or project her own sensibilities onto his choice to die, then she can go suck eggs imho. You're the doctor, not the moral arbiter, & that's a line which is just as sacred as the one the other doctor is blurring, as I see it. The doctor works for the patient. They don't get to decide what should happen. They get to recommend, & they should do that as objectively & dispassionately as humanly possible
There’s an argument that Worf may not have been in an emotional state to make that decision. As is the case with most suicidal humans. It’s not morally cut and dry. But aside from the personal emotions it’s no different from the other times Picard had to ignore something wrong out of respect for culture. It wasn’t wrong to offer Worf the experimental treatment but it is wrong to experiment on people who haven’t given informed consent, which is what she was doing in that episode.
Bingo. I think that's the part that's getting to me. I can see him coming down on that side, but I would have liked to have seen more conflict. Absolutely! I was also bothered that Crusher at first wanted to keep the procedure a secret from Worf. That's not your decision to make, Doctor!
Yeah, I'm not fond of that argument as it applies to suicide anyhow. It's akin to the one that suggests that anyone who'd want to choose death is compromised of mind, & therefore not competent, & thereby prohibited from doing so. If there were legitimate case history that suggested someone were suffering mental illness or somehow acting in a compromised state, then their choice to die is possibly open to discussion, but frankly, I'm of the conviction that a person's life is their own to do with whatever they want, including end it whenever they want. It's our increasingly death phobic culture that's determined to treat it as a 100% wrong-minded intention, imho
She felt her procedure was not a valid option, and telling Mr Worf would be giving him a false and unrealistic hope, and would affect his ability to make a real decision from proper choices. Like sort of imagine if you're a doctor, and you have a patient who needs to make a very difficult decision to accept a surgery that might save her life but she won't be able to walk or something, but if she doesn't do it she'll die. And then you have someone coming in and telling her she should forget your surgery and instead pray and she'll be 100% cured. Well you know that person's dangerous, because he's offering what you feel is a false hope that's going to cause her harm. I forget that other doctor's name, but she was totally being predatory. She's taking advantage of Mr Worf's state so she can use him for her own experiments, and she's practically tricking him into it. I'm completely behind Beverly on this one, part of her job as Worf's doctor is to protect him from people who will take advantage of him. If her procedure was risky but at least she'd properly developed it, I think things would be different. But you have to remember her work was not scientifically sound.
Then you as the other doctor explain that to him too. You give him all the information there is to give, including what you have on the things that you think are wrong choices. That's what informed consent means. At that point, it is up to the person what they will do with their own lives imho. This idea that because someone went to medical school, that they are to be the sole arbiter of what you are allowed to know or should/should not be allowed to do with your own life is totalitarian And by being withholding, because you fear someone might make a choice you find wrong or dangerous, you undermine your legitimacy
For me the issue revolves around who has the right to make decisions for the patient. For me, freedom means the freedom to make dumb choices. But I don't think the option Crusher wanted to hide from Worf was quite that drastically awful.
Technically, it is the only reason why he regains full mobility though. So in a sense, her not telling him was depriving him of that possibility, but I don't harp on her much for it either, because she has fully valid reasons for not wanting him to do it, & for him not turning to it, if he were to find out about it. If she's being overly secretive about it, then that's iffy, but in truth, I wouldn't expect my doctor to divulge every alternative/experimental medical option out there for my condition, as part of their comprehensive consultation. There's a degree I do expect, but while they are required to let you make your own decisions, you shouldn't expect them to do all the leg work for you to make decisions they'd not approve of I do come down on her for trying to push him about it. Not so much on those just doing it as friends, like Troi, but as his doctor, yes. If he finds out about it & wants to do it, she has to uphold her role as his doctor, & keep out of it, regardless of her friendship. Once she says, as your doctor I advise you don't do it, for such & such reason, then that's it. She's done. I suppose as chief medical officer on the ship, she could deny him the use of her facility to do what she considered an ill-advised operation, which it's odd that never came up (I guess also because she wanted to be a friend that helps him through it, if she could) but if I were her, I wouldn't harp on him, & guilt him about it... I'd just refuse to let them do it in my sick bay. You want to do it? We'll drop you off somewhere, Buddy. I'll have no part in it. You end up dead, it's not going to be in my house.