Would "Ethics" Work If It's Pulaski?

[Atomic_Monkey]

However, I can't see it having been Kate Pulaski showing up, as written in the Ethics script, because Dr. Toby Russell, is far more unethical in her practice than Pulaski ever was. In fact, the only time I can ever recall Pulaski being remotely reckless was in Unnatural Selection... With her own safety, never a patient's.

This was my one problem with "Ethics". Initially Dr. Russell was characterized as being very aggressive, but most of what she said and did were within the bounds of reason. For instance, the treatment she proposed for Worf wasn't crazy. The fact that there was some logic to her position made her disagreements with Crusher a two-sided debate. And that made the story rewarding both intellectually and entertainment-wise.

But then Dr. Russell went several steps further and recklessly administered the experimental drug to the casualties they'd rescued. That act was past the bounds of reasonable behavior and made her a cartoon villain, rather than a credible challenge to Dr. Crusher's point of view.

Because of that, I like your suggestion of having Dr. Pulaski play the foil to Dr. Crusher in this episode. It would have made the debate more interesting because it would have been between two people with reasonable, but differing opinions, rather than between a clearcut good guy and a clearcut villain.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

This is the Mandella effect happening in the Star Trek community.

To be fair, "It does know how to do these things, doesn't it?" Is pretty ignorant & rude. She does ask forgiveness about it, but she also remarks that she's studied his service record. So, she knows who this guy is, 3rd in command, 20 years in Starfleet, actually a living being, etc... She should know to behave better than questioning not only his personhood, but even his competence.

I'm new to TrekBBS. As I've browsed the forum I've seen several posts claiming that Pulaski was never mean to Data, and this is just fans misremembering. That surprised me because I'd just finished watching season 2 and she was clearly mean to Data. That wasn't me misremembering something I'd seen 40 years ago. I'd watched it less than a month ago. And it wasn't me being unduly influenced by other fans. I'd witnessed the rudeness firsthand and came to the conclusion without ever having spoken anyone about it.

In this thread there a number of specific examples given and debated. I'll acknowledge that many of those examples are subjective and a case can be made either way. In fact, for the sake of argument I'll concede that most of the examples do not constitute actual rudeness.

However, calling Data "it" was inarguably rude. That's a hill I'll die on. And it wasn't a mild slight, like forgetting someone's name. Her comment questioned and belittled his very personhood. That's a massive insult. So even if it is the only true example of rudeness, it's still safe to say Pulaski was rude to Data. Maybe not continuously, but at least in one terrible instance.

 

[SatrianiRules]

This was my one problem with "Ethics". Initially Dr. Russell was characterized as being very aggressive, but most of what she said and did were within the bounds of reason. For instance, the treatment she proposed for Worf wasn't crazy. The fact that there was some sense to her position made her disagreements with Crusher a two-sided debate. And that made the story rewarding both intellectually and entertainment-wise.

But then Dr. Russell went several steps further and recklessly administered the experimental drug to the casualties they'd rescued. That act was past the bounds of reasonable behavior and made her a cartoon villain, rather than a credible challenge to Dr. Crusher's point of view.

Because of that, I like your suggestion of having Dr. Pulaski play the foil to Dr. Crusher in this episode. It would have made the debate more interesting because it would have been between two people with reasonable, but differing opinions, rather than between a clearcut good guy and a clearcut villain.

agreed , the act of administering the drug was borderline criminal, and what should have been changed should have been how she offered the treatment to Worf....If she had sat down with Crusher and Picard and said: "I've got this 'hail mary' treament we can try...if Worf agrees to it..but the probability is very low..."

that would have been completely reasonable, but then she would not have villainous undertones they gave her....and so Crusher would have been in the wrong for being resistant to it...so they had to make her unethical so that people rooted for Beverly.

 

[Phoenix219]

I'm new to TrekBBS. As I've browsed the forum I've seen several posts claiming that Pulaski was never mean to Data, and this is just fans misremembering. That surprised me because I'd just finished watching season 2 and she was clearly mean to Data. That wasn't me misremembering something I'd seen 40 years ago. I'd watched it less than a month ago. And it wasn't me being unduly influenced by other fans. I'd witnessed the rudeness firsthand and came to the conclusion without ever having spoken anyone about it.

In this thread there a number of specific examples given and debated. I'll acknowledge that many of those examples are subjective and a case can be made either way. In fact, for the sake of argument I'll concede that most of the examples do not constitute actual rudeness.

However, calling Data "it" was inarguably rude. That's a hill I'll die on. And it wasn't a mild slight, like forgetting someone's name. Her comment questioned and belittled his very personhood. That's a massive insult. So even if it is the only true example of rudeness, it's still safe to say Pulaski was rude to Data. Maybe not continuously, but at least in one terrible instance.

That was when they met each other, and it was her first exposure to something like Data. She quickly learned from it. The "rudeness" was one or two interactions early in the season. She spends another episode being skeptical (the beginning of elementary, dear data) and clearly sees there is more to him by the end of that episode. By Unnatural Selection, she see's a totally different side of him, and by the end of the season, she is the only one willing to challenge him or understand that he IS capable of self doubt, pouting, etc when everyone else thinks he is just a machine. It was never a rudeness; just a lack of understanding, and she very quickly learned. She would have been Data's biggest supporter going forward, and its a huge shame to me that the season 3 premiere with the nanites wasn't able to continue this trajectory.

 

[Phoenix219]

I know its technically not the topic of the thread, but EVERY episode would work if its Pulaski.

Better character, better actress, better Doctor.

Except Sub Rosa. Sub Rosa would not work with Pulaski. LOL.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

That was when they met each other, and it was her first exposure to something like Data. She quickly learned from it. The "rudeness" was one or two interactions early in the season. She spends another episode being skeptical (the beginning of elementary, dear data) and clearly sees there is more to him by the end of that episode. By Unnatural Selection, she see's a totally different side of him, and by the end of the season, she is the only one willing to challenge him or understand that he IS capable of self doubt, pouting, etc when everyone else thinks he is just a machine. It was never a rudeness; just a lack of understanding, and she very quickly learned.

Calling someone "it" is rude. How is this even a debate? I understand that she eventually came to respect Data and treat him better, but that doesn't negate the fact that her initial interaction was rude. If someone blatantly disrespect you, but shortly thereafter regretted and later came to even admire you, it would still be factually accurate to say they'd been rude to you.

If you showed that scene to a hundred non-Trek fans and asked them, "Was Dr. Pulaski rude to Data?" I'm confident nearly all of them would answer in the affirmative. I doubt many would sit back and try to rationalize it away.

 

[Farscape One]

This was my one problem with "Ethics". Initially Dr. Russell was characterized as being very aggressive, but most of what she said and did were within the bounds of reason. For instance, the treatment she proposed for Worf wasn't crazy. The fact that there was some logic to her position made her disagreements with Crusher a two-sided debate. And that made the story rewarding both intellectually and entertainment-wise.

But then Dr. Russell went several steps further and recklessly administered the experimental drug to the casualties they'd rescued. That act was past the bounds of reasonable behavior and made her a cartoon villain, rather than a credible challenge to Dr. Crusher's point of view.

Because of that, I like your suggestion of having Dr. Pulaski play the foil to Dr. Crusher in this episode. It would have made the debate more interesting because it would have been between two people with reasonable, but differing opinions, rather than between a clearcut good guy and a clearcut villain.

I agree the episode painted Dr. Russell badly with that scene with the casualties. It was trying too hard to paint her as the villain.

Frankly, the actual villain in the entire episode was Crusher. First, she was withholding one of her patients options and essentially forcing him to go down a path he did not want. That's pushing your values onto your patient, which is just wrong. Second, she declared in no uncertain terms she was not going to let Worf perform his ritual ceremony. Doesn't matter that the suicide was something she disagreed with. That is the patient's choice, not hers. And third, at the end, Crusher couldn't even pretend to be glad that Russell's therapy. And that's because, ultimately, Crusher didn't get her way and force Worf to go with her idea.

agreed , the act of administering the drug was borderline criminal, and what should have been changed should have been how she offered the treatment to Worf....If she had sat down with Crusher and Picard and said: "I've got this 'hail mary' treament we can try...if Worf agrees to it..but the probability is very low..."

that would have been completely reasonable, but then she would not have villainous undertones they gave her....and so Crusher would have been in the wrong for being resistant to it...so they had to make her unethical so that people rooted for Beverly.

I never rooted for Beverly in that episode. She should have presented each of the options to Worf instead of just giving him the one option: Crusher's option. Crusher was in the wrong fir not bothering to give Worf the choice to begin with.

 

[Ragitsu]

That act was past the bounds of reasonable behavior and made her a cartoon villain, rather than a credible challenge to Dr. Crusher's point of view.

Oh, I don't know: a cartoon villain would be consistently immoral and/or unethical, while nakedly reveling in any contemptuous behavior. Russell was decent in some ways yet extreme in others; at worst, she would merely be a "regular" villain. Perhaps she was once just as fully on-the-level as Beverely, but, somewhere along the way in her research she decided to push the boundaries of her oath until she one day baby-stepped over the line.

And third, at the end, Crusher couldn't even pretend to be glad that Russell's therapy. And that's because, ultimately, Crusher didn't get her way and force Worf to go with her idea.

RUSSELL: Well, I'd say your patient's recovery is going well. You're not even going to acknowledge what I did for him, are you. You just can't admit that it was my research that made this possible.
CRUSHER: I am delighted that Worf is going to recover. You gambled, he won. Not all of your patients are so lucky.

She can be both happy that a comrade pulled through and (blatantly) disapproving of an erstwhile colleague's dubious ethics.

 

[Farscape One]

Oh, I don't know: a cartoon villain would be consistently immoral and/or unethical, while nakedly reveling in any contemptuous behavior. Russell was decent in some ways yet extreme in others; at worst, she would merely be a "regular" villain. Perhaps she was once just as fully on-the-level as Beverely, but, somewhere along the way in her research she decided to push the boundaries of her oath until she one day baby-stepped over the line.





She can be both happy that a comrade pulled through and (blatantly) disapproving of an erstwhile colleague's dubious ethics.

Her inflections and tone were definitely NOT in line with her being delighted. Hell, she had to be basically pushed into her saying she was delighted. At least, that certainly appeared that way to me.

And with the exception of the casualty Russell gave that new drug to, there was nothing dubious about her ethics.

 

[Phoenix219]

Calling someone "it" is rude. How is this even a debate? I understand that she eventually came to respect Data and treat him better, but that doesn't negate the fact that her initial interaction was rude. If someone blatantly disrespect you, but shortly thereafter regretted and later came to even admire you, it would still be factually accurate to say they'd been rude to you.

If you showed that scene to a hundred non-Trek fans and asked them, "Was Dr. Pulaski rude to Data?" I'm confident nearly all of them would answer in the affirmative. I doubt many would sit back and try to rationalize it away.

She knew it was an android without emotions. A literal machine. You can't be rude to something that isn't alive and doesn't care. She came to change her opinion of him as she got to know him, and it was a learning experience, but it was never rude. There was never a rude intent.

And again, it was like 2 lines in an entire season, not enough to create the giant meme that exists on the topic.

 

[Farscape One]

She knew it was an android without emotions. A literal machine. You can't be rude to something that isn't alive and doesn't care. She came to change her opinion of him as she got to know him, and it was a learning experience, but it was never rude. There was never a rude intent.

And again, it was like 2 lines in an entire season, not enough to create the giant meme that exists on the topic.

Except he is alive, according to Starfleet records stated by Pulaski herself in "Where Silence Has Lease".

When she was on the bridge, she started to say she wasn't used to 'working with non-living machines', at which point Data turned and looked right at her and she corrected herself by saying the record states he is 'alive and I must accept that'. And Data smiled at that moment.

So yes, Data IS alive and he clearly showed that it did bother him.

Having said all that, she DID improve greatly regarding Data (and the only real times she was rude to him was the first two episodes), to the point where in "Pen Pals" she said that Sarjenka was Data's friend and that was a good enough reason for her to be his advocate in that debate.

And one can be rude without intent. It happens every day in real life. Doesn't mean the rudeness never happened.

 

[Phoenix219]

Except he is alive, according to Starfleet records stated by Pulaski herself in "Where Silence Has Lease".

When she was on the bridge, she started to say she wasn't used to 'working with non-living machines', at which point Data turned and looked right at her and she corrected herself by saying the record states he is 'alive and I must accept that'. And Data smiled at that moment.

So yes, Data IS alive and he clearly showed that it did bother him.

Having said all that, she DID improve greatly regarding Data (and the only real times she was rude to him was the first two episodes), to the point where in "Pen Pals" she said that Sarjenka was Data's friend and that was a good enough reason for her to be his advocate in that debate.

And one can be rude without intent. It happens every day in real life. Doesn't mean the rudeness never happened.

it was obviously a disconnect in her mind, because he IS a non organic mechanical construct. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual record says sentient or sapiant, not alive, because I don't think many, even Data's biggest supporters and friends, would claim that he is actually alive in the traditional sense. He is conscious. He is self aware. And in that context it explains her confusion; He's not alive, but is a conscious, self aware, sentient being.

I still don't believe that she is being rude. People interpret it that way, but Data would be the first to say that he is unbothered (although his reaction belies this, which is all part of the later Pulaski/Data arc of the season anyways.)

some of this could be issues stemming from his original description, where he is basically biosynthetic in the Replicant sense, to the point where he was able to get drunk in the Naked Now, and presumably feel pleasure in the fully functional sort of way.

 

[korblborp]

while i think pulaski's reputation for "hating" him is overblown, i also think you are downplaying her behavior towards data quite a bit. but, i also think that her initial behavior and skepticism lead to her challenging him and assumptions made about him made her "get" data better than some of the other crew, even geordi. she learned and grew, and the more i think about it the more i think it's weird and a missed opportunity that she wasn't included in Picard, with so much about androids and data.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

She knew it was an android without emotions. A literal machine. You can't be rude to something that isn't alive and doesn't care.

Your argument would make sense had she not read his service record, but she did. She was aware of the fact that he operated as an independent, sentient being. The idea that she was ignorant doesn't hold water.

And again, it was like 2 lines in an entire season, not enough to create the giant meme that exists on the topic.

Again, if you're rude to a person even once, you were in fact rude to them. Period. The fact that you later treated them kindly doesn't erase history.

Moreover, when the rudeness reaches the level of Dr. Pulaski's comment (in essence a derogatory slur) it's enough to stick in fans' memories. Had her rudeness had been a minor slight, say forgetting his him, then it would be odd for fans to put so much emphasis on it. But slurring him as an "it" after having read his service record is not a minor slight you can brush off.

 

[Ragitsu]

I should note that I was not speaking from my perspective on Bev's actions, merely how she - the character - would perceive and react to developments.

 

[CoveTom]

Your argument would make sense had she not read his service record, but she did. She was aware of the fact that he operated as an independent, sentient being. The idea that she was ignorant doesn't hold water.



Again, if you're rude to a person even once, you were in fact rude to them. Period. The fact that you later treated them kindly doesn't erase history.

Moreover, when the rudeness reaches the level of Dr. Pulaski's comment (in essence a derogatory slur) it's enough to stick in fans' memories. Had her rudeness had been a minor slight, say forgetting his him, then it would be odd for fans to put so much emphasis on it. But slurring him as an "it" after having read his service record is not a minor slight you can brush off.

There was still great debate at that time as to whether or not Data was, in fact, sentient. His service record may have referred to him as "alive," but Starfleet also viewed him as property until "The Measure of a Man," and felt perfectly comfortable ordering him to submit to disassembly. Even Riker, in "Encounter at Farpoint," admitted that Data being a machine troubled him. Heck, even as late as "Clues," Picard was sayinig Data would be "stripped down to his wires" to find out why he malfunctioned.

I don't think anything Pulaski said or did is that difficult to understand or explain. Data was something brand new and completely unique. Not every single person in the Federation is going to immediately understand or even agree as to what he is.

 

[Ragitsu]

If Riker harbored the smallest of apprehensions regarding his new colleague, he must have gotten over it pretty damn quickly.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I don't think anything Pulaski said or did is that difficult to understand or explain. Data was something brand new and completely unique. Not every single person in the Federation is going to immediately understand or even agree as to what he is.

Yes, Pulaski calling Data "it" is understandable and can be explained. That doesn't mean it wasn't rude. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

As for Riker, the original intention was to make him skeptical of Data. That was going to be an ongoing arc. (I think that's outlined in the series bible.) However, other than Riker's comments in "Encounter at Farpoint", which you cited, the idea was dropped. In fact, when Pulaski called Data "it" this was the first thing that popped into my mind. I figured they were recycling the abandoned Ricker storyline and giving it to Pulaski.

 

[flyerdog]

Yes, Pulaski calling Data "it" is understandable and can be explained. That doesn't mean it wasn't rude. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

who knows , maybe Data told Pulaski that his pronoun was "It"

 

[Oddish]

Doubtful. Data certainly identifies as male, but he can do his job even if someone calls him by the wrong pronoun.