Who's side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
I haven't watched it in a while, but I thought it would have been an interesting outcome of his work if he could have freed the Jem'Hadar of the need for the white and some sort of mini revolt within the ranks might have happened. I thought that a likely outcome because of the need the Founders felt to exert that extra measure of control over them. Not that they would have attacked the Founders, they could have become rebellious or rogue Jem'Hadar like those in To The Death.
On the other hand, [edit in:] Kinda risky though.
Edit out: [they're genetically devoted to the Founders to some degree even without the white. Bashir could have created a bigger problem for the Federation if he dissolved one of the more important vulnerabilities of the Dominion. There was too much potential risk to the Federation,]
So I side with O’Brien on this one.
On the other hand, [edit in:] Kinda risky though.
Edit out: [they're genetically devoted to the Founders to some degree even without the white. Bashir could have created a bigger problem for the Federation if he dissolved one of the more important vulnerabilities of the Dominion. There was too much potential risk to the Federation,]
So I side with O’Brien on this one.
Julian Was Right. 
As a loyal Dominionite, this is WHY I was rooting for Julian to create the cure...silly boy.
As a loyal Dominionite, this is WHY I was rooting for Julian to create the cure...silly boy.
Weyoun might not have been the only Vorta killed by Jem'Hadar. 
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
I agree that Bashir's attempts were a tactical mistake, simply because they don't know what effect freeing the Jem'Hadar would have, but I still think that he was right to try. I think the possibility that they might go on to attack the Federation is meaningless next to the basic moral imperatives of feeding the starving and freeing the enslaved.
I agree that Bashir's attempts were a tactical mistake, simply because they don't know what effect freeing the Jem'Hadar would have, but I still think that he was right to try. I think the possibility that they might go on to attack the Federation is meaningless next to the basic moral imperatives of feeding the starving and freeing the enslaved.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
For me ...your personal survival trumps any oath... unless of course your job is a rear guard defense of a main body...like Charlemagne's great general, Roland.
What was the Dr thinking... the Jem'Hadar being cured of their addiction become peaceful farmers or menders of shoes?
For me ...your personal survival trumps any oath... unless of course your job is a rear guard defense of a main body...like Charlemagne's great general, Roland.
What was the Dr thinking... the Jem'Hadar being cured of their addiction become peaceful farmers or menders of shoes?
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
I'm on Miles' side.
Julian was morally right and as a (human) doctor obliged to help but ultimately i think he would have caused more problems than he solved.
First.. though he may have found a cure for white addiction and in the unlikely situation he would be able to distribute that amongst the Jem'Hadar the Dominion wouldn't take this lightly.
Their scientists would just sit down and develop a new and possibly "safer" way to implement the white addiction and Julian would be at step 1 again.
Additionally the Jem'Hadar reverence for the Founders is hardwired into their genetic code and as a First (or whoever) once said the white is in fact unecessary because they wouldn't ever betray the Founders or the Dominion (though the renegade Jem'Hadar that took an Iconian Gate is still a mystery to me.. why and how did they manage to shake off this genetic coding?).
Third and most dire.. what would happen if Jem'Hadar somehow wound up separated from the Dominion but not addicted to the White so they could function for extended periods of time?
They are bred for combat and that's all they know.. they are not interested in ruling somebody, in trade, culture or anything else that makes up a well rounded society and individual.
They would wreak havoc on anyone they see as an enemy (and that's pretty much everybody not part of the Dominion).
Bashir would have removed their one weakness and gave them free reign.
I'm on Miles' side.
Julian was morally right and as a (human) doctor obliged to help but ultimately i think he would have caused more problems than he solved.
First.. though he may have found a cure for white addiction and in the unlikely situation he would be able to distribute that amongst the Jem'Hadar the Dominion wouldn't take this lightly.
Their scientists would just sit down and develop a new and possibly "safer" way to implement the white addiction and Julian would be at step 1 again.
Additionally the Jem'Hadar reverence for the Founders is hardwired into their genetic code and as a First (or whoever) once said the white is in fact unecessary because they wouldn't ever betray the Founders or the Dominion (though the renegade Jem'Hadar that took an Iconian Gate is still a mystery to me.. why and how did they manage to shake off this genetic coding?).
Third and most dire.. what would happen if Jem'Hadar somehow wound up separated from the Dominion but not addicted to the White so they could function for extended periods of time?
They are bred for combat and that's all they know.. they are not interested in ruling somebody, in trade, culture or anything else that makes up a well rounded society and individual.
They would wreak havoc on anyone they see as an enemy (and that's pretty much everybody not part of the Dominion).
Bashir would have removed their one weakness and gave them free reign.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
O'Brien. Definitely.
Bashir should have been brought up on treason charges. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
O'Brien. Definitely.
Bashir should have been brought up on treason charges. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
I was on O'Brien's side.
Julian was being too idealistic. These where beings who were BRED to fight. They weren't just 'good guys gone wrong' - they were BRED to be bad guys, from the cellular level on up.
Miles was much more realistic.
I was on O'Brien's side.
Julian was being too idealistic. These where beings who were BRED to fight. They weren't just 'good guys gone wrong' - they were BRED to be bad guys, from the cellular level on up.
Miles was much more realistic.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
O'Brien was right for two reasons.
1) The first duty of any Starfleet officer held prisoner is to escape.
2) Removing the Jem'Hadar's addiction to Ketracel White would be a gigantic breach of the Prime Directive and could have had massive consequences in the future - before foreseen and unforeseen.
We saw during the war what effects the Federation's efforts to cripple the Dominion's supply of Ketracel White had. The Cardassians were even considering poisoning the last doses they had.
O'Brien was right for two reasons.
1) The first duty of any Starfleet officer held prisoner is to escape.
2) Removing the Jem'Hadar's addiction to Ketracel White would be a gigantic breach of the Prime Directive and could have had massive consequences in the future - before foreseen and unforeseen.
We saw during the war what effects the Federation's efforts to cripple the Dominion's supply of Ketracel White had. The Cardassians were even considering poisoning the last doses they had.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
The Jem'Hadar were still the enemy.
od0_ital said:
Babaganoosh said:
... Bashir should have been brought up on treason charges. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The Federation wasn't at war with the Dominion yet.
The Jem'Hadar were still the enemy.
Re: Whose side were you on in Hippocratic Oath
I actually partially agree with you there. Not that Bashir should have been tried for treason, but that there's a real possibility he would have been. (That he wasn't was probably down to the way O'Brien wrote his own report, IMO. Words and phrases such as "rogue" and "attempting to free themselves" probably went far.)
Ever since TOS, the Federation has had this rather naive and/or paternalistic view of itself that boils down to, "We're so wonderful that everyone wants to join us. If you don't want to join us you're either evil or not advanced enough to embrace our superior ideals." For my own theories I've extended this attitude to apply to its own citizens, to explain why the only members of Federation species we've seen living off Federation "soil"--other than military and scientists on Federation outposts--are defectors and criminals.
I actually partially agree with you there. Not that Bashir should have been tried for treason, but that there's a real possibility he would have been. (That he wasn't was probably down to the way O'Brien wrote his own report, IMO. Words and phrases such as "rogue" and "attempting to free themselves" probably went far.)
Ever since TOS, the Federation has had this rather naive and/or paternalistic view of itself that boils down to, "We're so wonderful that everyone wants to join us. If you don't want to join us you're either evil or not advanced enough to embrace our superior ideals." For my own theories I've extended this attitude to apply to its own citizens, to explain why the only members of Federation species we've seen living off Federation "soil"--other than military and scientists on Federation outposts--are defectors and criminals.
Similar threads
