Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Ethics"
Timothy W. Lynch
TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
scene at this point in time.
Well, better than expected, but not particularly good...
We'll have to see how the numbers turn out. You'll find out when I do; and
we'll both do that after this synopsis:
A random accident critically injures Worf, paralyzing him from the waist
down (and the prognosis is that the damage is permanent). A neurospecialist,
Dr. Toby Russell, comes aboard and begins working with Beverly on possible
treatments. After three days and no progress, Riker visits Worf in sickbay.
He is appalled, however, to find that Worf considers his life over, and that
he wants Riker to help him commit ritual suicide!
Meanwhile, with traditional treatments apparently ineffective, Dr. Russell
mentions a new line of research she's been working in, that of "genotronic
replication." If successful, it would leave Worf as good as new; but if not,
Worf would die. Further, she's never used it on a humanoid before, and her
success rate on holodeck simulations is only 37%. Beverly decides the risk
to Worf is unjustifiable, and decides to continue searching more conventional
options. Then, to make matters worse, word comes in of a crash-landed ship
nearby with over five hundred people aboard, throwing the Enterprise medical
staff into overdrive.
After Picard tells Riker that he cannot make Riker's decision for him (and
exhorts Riker to keep as open a mind as possible), Troi comforts Alexander,
who is angry at not being allowed to see his father (at Worf's own request).
She later upbraids Worf for putting his honor above his son. Beverly and Dr.
Russell arrive, and tell Worf of a treatment with artificial implants that
would eventually result in his regaining about 60% of his mobility. Worf
makes a halfhearted attempt to use the training device, but angrily rejects
this line of treatment as repugnant. Russell, seeing an opening, quickly
mentions her genotronic treatment, pointing out the possibility of a complete
recovery. As they leave Worf to ponder this, Beverly angry upbraids Russell
for overstepping her authority, and using a patient's desperation to advance
her own research. Their conversation is interrupted, however, as the
Enterprise reaches the crash site, and both doctors apply their efforts to
the emergency at hand.
During this treatment, however, Russell oversteps her bounds and uses her own
treatments rather than conventional methods on one patient. The patient
dies, and a livid Beverly removes Russell from all medical duty. A few hours
later, however, Picard quietly suggests to her that she allow Russell to use
the genotronic method on Worf, pointing out to her that the choice Worf faces
in his own mind is that of suicide or risking death for a full cure. An
upset Beverly ponders this, while Riker confronts Worf about the suicide
ritual. He angrily takes Worf to task for his attitude throughout the whole
affair, and clinches matters by saying that Klingon custom does not allow
Riker to be the one who assists; that falls to the oldest son (i.e.
Alexander). Worf, unwilling or unable to ask Alexander to help him die,
chooses the option of the genotronic treatment.
Beverly grudgingly allows the treatment, and the procedure begins (after Worf
asks Troi to raise Alexander should he die in the process). While Picard,
Riker, Troi and Alexander all busy themselves with nonessentials, things in
surgery go smoothly, for the most part. However, once the new spinal column
is in place and Worf's brain is taken off life support, he suddenly goes into
cardiac arrest; and despite Beverly's best efforts, dies on the operating
table. She tearfully tells Alexander the bad news--but when Alexander goes
in to see him, Worf suddenly twitches. The Klingon anatomy's many
"unnecessary" redundancies are the very thing that saved his life. Beverly
stonily bids farewell to Russell, and Worf begins the road back to recovery.
Well...that's got to be the shortest synopsis I've written in a while. Now,
for the random musings.
I'm still not entirely sure what was intended here, or how much of it worked.
Elements of it worked quite well for me, while others were literally
*laughably* bad. I'll see what I can sort out.
Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
*caring* about the positions being taken. Both sides were well presented, at
least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
as it could have been. Nice.
It helped, of course, that Gates McFadden turned in her best performance in a
long, *LONG* time here--probably as far back as "Remember Me", if not more
so. It goes to show what kind of performance she's capable of with a meaty
role, I suppose, but this was the most passion-filled performance I've seen
from her in many a moon. In particular, both her scene in triage with the
dead passenger from the crashed ship and her final scene with Russell after
surgery were real tour de forces. She *crackled*; something which neither
the actor nor the character gets much of a chance to do often. Watching the
ethical battle unfold, and Bev really let loose within it, was definitely the
high point of the show. (Not to slight Caroline Kava, the woman who played
Dr. Russell; she was also very good.)
Elements of Worf's suicide thoughts were also well done, though significantly
less so. His initial request to Riker was sudden and shocking, just as it
should be. Riker's absolute detestation of the idea was a little surprising,
though not much, and was understandable. (Those who insist that the TNG
characters never disagree about anything will find a lot of counterexamples
this week, from all the different attitudes about Worf's suicide to the
Picard/Bev battle over whether to allow the genotronic procedure, to Troi
upbraiding Worf about Alexander. But I digress.) Picard's "I'm staying
above it all, but I respect his beliefs stance" made some sense at first, but
seems a little worrisome in retrospect. In part, Picard's claim that Worf
absolutely *would not* cope with his disability, even to the point of killing
himself, seems a little incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually trying
the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander. I'm not sure how I'll
end up seeing that down the line. Both Frakes and Dorn turned in good
performances, and both characterizations made sense; but that wasn't quite
enough.
In part, the Troi/Alexander section of this plot didn't work very well for
me. Yes, it was a good use of Troi *so far as it went*, and Alexander's
reactions made some sense; but that's all. In particular, I got absolutely
*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
condition, and indeed seemed to be causing more problems than she solved.
It's fine and dandy for her to care about Alexander's concern for his father;
someone has to. But for her to *only* be concerned about it [as she says] to
the extent of ignoring Worf's very real mental state at present smacks of
callousness--and last I checked, that was a rather bad trait for a therapist.
[It also didn't help that Alexander's "this is that Klingon stuff, isn't it?"
scene demonstrated that Alexander is likely to have zero Klingon traits
beyond physical appearance, which I simply don't find very interesting in
isolation.]
And then...we come to the surgery itself. Better luck next time, guys--with
only a couple of exceptions, I laughed my way through the entire fifth act.
[The two main exceptions were Worf's scene to Troi at the start, and Bev's
absolutely icy farewell scene to Russell.] Let's go through this in detail:
1) Anyone who's been reading these for a while knows that I don't usually
care *that* much about scientific accuracy in TNG. The one exception is
usually when the entire plot hinges on a point that's simply absurd. "A
Matter of Perspective" did it two seasons ago with absolutely incorrect
explanations of a time delay, and "Ethics" did it here. Having to take a DNA
sample from the spinal column when DNA coding is identical in every cell?
The "backup synaptic network" somehow jump-starting Worf's *HEART*? The BSN
taking so long to kick in that oxygen starvation should leave Worf
irrevocably brain-damaged? Puh-leeze. (And that's just the basics; my
wife's a biologist and had a lot more objections. I'll leave 'em alone,
though.) It doesn't kill the show completely, but good Lord, it's sloppy.
2) The return of one of TNG's silliest concepts: the All-Red Surgical Gown.
To quote Gina Goff back when "Samaritan Snare" premiered the thing, "Ah, the
Cardinals' Center for Cardiac Corrections, where everyone's so busy
contemplating the Oneness of Red that they don't pay any attention to being
good surgeons!" Seriously, what's the bright idea behind these things?
We've seen Bev and Pulaski in surgery without them, and they're simply
distracting.
3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
4) Finally, and most importantly, there was really nothing keeping me
interested. I knew the surgery would be difficult, and that Worf would play
handball on Death's stoop for a while, and that in the end he'd live and be
fully recovered. The only deviation from strict formula seemed to be when
Worf actually "died"; but even then, it was just a matter of seeing how far
the point would be stretched. I just couldn't get into it.
And one last point there--while I will hold out hope that Worf will not be
back to full and complete health by the next show, I fully expect this to
never come up again. I hope I'm wrong.
Anyways...that's it for the long stuff. Now for some short takes:
--I've seen rumours that Dr. Russell was originally supposed to be Dr.
Pulaski. This time, unlike Valeris replacing Saavik in ST6, I fully support
the change. Pulaski may have been a bit bullheaded at times, and may have
been crusty, but I can't for a moment imagine her being that callous.
--Another quote during the surgery sequence:
Nurse: "Cerebral cortex placed on life support."
Tim: "They Saved Worf's Brain...and then redeemed it for valuable
cash prizes!"
(Okay, so I was in a weird mood. :-) )
--Someone did their homework. When Dr. Russell first comes on board, she
mentions a paper Bev wrote on cybernetic regeneration. *Very* smart; in
"11001001", she was doing some research in just that area. Nice attention to
detail.
--TNG has now unequivocally taken a stand on the right-to-die movement; not
so much with Worf, but with Picard's analogy to Riker about a terminally ill
patient. Just for those keeping track.
--On the other hand, when Worf was looking for a suitable parent for
Alexander, why did he suddenly forget he had a brother? I could understand
if he decided against it based on his experiences with Kurn, but his parents
*aren't* the only relatives he's got, after all...
--So Geordi can see the cards while playing poker? Neat, but it might end up
opening a nasty can of worms next game. As long as they remember. :-)
--The music was nondescript, but not a real problem.
I think that's about it. It wasn't the complete waste of time I was afraid
it might be, but it could have been much more interesting than it was.
So, the numbers:
Plot: 5. 9 for Bev/Russell, 5 for Worf/suicide, and 1 for the surgery.
Plot Handling/Direction: 4, most of it for the Bev/Russell handling. Chip
Chalmers is not likely to pick up the nickname "Ingmar" any time
soon. :-)
Characterization/Acting: 8. Definitely the strongest part of the show.
TOTAL: 5, rounding down a bit for general atmosphere. Okay, but hardly
terrific.
NEXT WEEK: A rerun of "A Matter of Time".
IN TWO WEEKS: An extremely late review of "The Outcast". Ta!
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"You scare me, doctor. You risk your patients' lives, and justify it in the
name of research. Genuine research takes time--sometimes a lifetime of
painstaking, detailed work in order to get any results. Not for you. You
take shortcuts--right through living tissue. You put your research *ahead*
of your patients' lives, and as far as I'm conerned, that's a violation of
our most sacred trust. I'm sure your work will be hailed as a stunning
breakthrough. Enjoy your laurels, doctor; I'm not sure I could."
--
Copyright 1992, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
John Piscitello
I also found most of the scenes of Worf lying in bed to be boring. However,
I disagree with Lynch on a few things:
- The Riker/Picard scene. I thought it was the best scene in the show.
I haven't seen any Ingmar Bergman movies, though. The way they talk about
mundane work items, then the silence falls, then they talk about what's
really on their minds - "Any word yet?" "None." The closeups *made* the scene,
giving you a feeling that something important is going on, clueing you in to
their worry about Worf. First time in a long time I've been convinced that
any of these characters give a damn about each other.
- Troi/Alexander. You people in this newsgroup all seem to hate Troi.
The scene where Worf asks her to take care of Alex was a good one. And I
like Alexander - it's cool how he's like a bratty little human kid. His
inability to understand Klingon ideas of "honor" were a subtle and interesting
nuance tossed in. There was *alot* going on in this episode.
- Did anybody notice how stupid it was to have 500-pound containers
on shelves like that? You'd think the safety designers would have put in
guard rails. What happens when the ship gets hit in battle, and everybody's
rolling around the bridge? Those damn things would be falling all over the place.
An uncreative, and obvious setup to the plot. Cheesy.
- Worst scene: Riker's sanctimonious diatribe with Worf when refusing
to help him commit suicide. Anybody seen the "Oscar Clip" from Wayne's World?
They should have put this scene in there.
- The surgery mostly worked. Besides the ridiculous medical BS, they
actually had me convinced Worf was dead. They paid a price for it, though, with
his revival. I was expecting E.T.'s heartlight to come on right about then.
"Worf phone home, Worf phone home!" At least they wrapped the dialogue in a
blanket of made-up 24th century medical mumbo jumbo. Nothing like TNG's
excessive engineering emphasis to clear all of the emotion right out of a scene.
/****************************************************************************
Johnny Tello * Postal Worker: "What's your first name, Mr. Burns?"
504 Beacon St, Apt#23. * Homer: "I don't know..."
Boston, MA 02215 *
****************************************************************************/
Todd Petit
wrote:
TW> Picard's "I'm
TW> staying
TW> above it all, but I respect his beliefs stance" made some sense at
TW> first, but
TW> seems a little worrisome in retrospect. In part, Picard's claim that
TW> Worf
TW> absolutely *would not* cope with his disability, even to the point of
TW> killing
TW> himself, seems a little incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually
TW> trying
TW> the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander. I'm not sure
TW> how I'll
TW> end up seeing that down the line. Both Frakes and Dorn turned in
I thought that Riker and Picard had the best lines in the entire show.
Riker's revulsion was not surprising at all as we've been exposed to his
feelings on moral matters on several occassions and he always reacts the
same. Picard's stance made perfect sense. After his experiences with Worf
on the Klingon homeworld he knows better than any of them what makes his
security officer tick--and he knows that Worf WILL kill himself if it comes
to that. Picard was being realistic--Riker and Crusher were merely being
righteous. As far as Worf's trying the conventional treatment, I believe
that this was ONLY so he could retain his honor whilst talking to
Alexander. I do not believe for a minute that he did this for any other
reason.
-- Via DLG Pro v0.985b
Atsushi Kanamori
> Well, Lynch is right, some of the medical stuff was ridiculous.
>I also found most of the scenes of Worf lying in bed to be boring. However,
>I disagree with Lynch on a few things:
>
> - The Riker/Picard scene. I thought it was the best scene in the show.
>I haven't seen any Ingmar Bergman movies, though. The way they talk about
>mundane work items, then the silence falls, then they talk about what's
>really on their minds - "Any word yet?" "None." The closeups *made* the scene,
>giving you a feeling that something important is going on, clueing you in to
>their worry about Worf. First time in a long time I've been convinced that
>any of these characters give a damn about each other.
Damn right. I wouldn't call it the *best* scene, but the bit about
dealing with their sense of frustration by *not* dealing with their
frustration (i.e. filling their time with mundane work items) hit
the spot just right.
> - Troi/Alexander. You people in this newsgroup all seem to hate Troi.
And we've had good reason to, in the past, IMO. I had no objection to
her this week, though. That wasn't what made this part of the story fail.
>The scene where Worf asks her to take care of Alex was a good one. And I
>like Alexander - it's cool how he's like a bratty little human kid.
Bleahh... I find it most *uncool* how he's a top contender for the most
generic, unimaginative, shallow, uninteresting and poorly acted character
in all of Star Trek.
>His
>inability to understand Klingon ideas of "honor" were a subtle and interesting
>nuance tossed in.
Subtle? You must be joking. "My mother told me Klingons had a lot of dumb
ideas." Yeah, real subtle.
C'mon, this little "nuance" dates all the way back to REUNION ("I don't
*want* to be a warrier", "He knows *nothing* about Klingon ways!")
The *concept* of a father and son disagreeing on the way of life is,
in itself, a good idea. For it to be interesting, however, both players
*have* to be interesting and three-dimensional characters. So far,
neither come particularly close to the mark.
> - Did anybody notice how stupid it was to have 500-pound containers
>on shelves like that? You'd think the safety designers would have put in
>guard rails. What happens when the ship gets hit in battle, and everybody's
>rolling around the bridge? Those damn things would be falling all over the
>place. An uncreative, and obvious setup to the plot. Cheesy.
Also trivial. The setup was just that; we all knew what it was leading to
and the important thing was to get it done and out of the way.
> - Worst scene: Riker's sanctimonious diatribe with Worf when refusing
>to help him commit suicide. Anybody seen the "Oscar Clip" from Wayne's World?
>They should have put this scene in there.
Again agreed. It was gratuitous, overblown and just plain irritating.
>
> - The surgery mostly worked.
Worf lived. I guess that qualifies as "worked" (:-)
. . . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . ::.: . ..: : .. : ..
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: ::::::::..::::.
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Power Play" --
"Picard, you are mine." -- Troi
Dave Martin
>The scene where Worf asks her to take care of Alex was a good one. And I
>like Alexander - it's cool how he's like a bratty little human kid. His
>inability to understand Klingon ideas of "honor" were a subtle and interesting
>nuance tossed in. There was *alot* going on in this episode.
I agree. I also believe that the reason Worf did not request that Alexander be
taken to Kurn is that Worf was realizing (perhaps from Riker's refusal and his
point that tradition left that task to the eldest son) that Alexander would not
fit in and possibly even not survive if raised by a true Klingon such as Kurn.
I think that Worf may have learned to respect Alexander's disinterest in the
ways of the Klingons.
I also think that Riker's very strong distaste for suicide may come from the
loss of someone close to him through that very route. Someone who has attempted
suicide usually doesn't react like that, though it is a possibility. Someone
who has never experienced the feeling which could lead to suicide, nor lost
someone close to it, would react more like you'd expect Troi to - talk to them,
tell them that they don't really want to do that, etc. Getting emotional about
a topic usually means that there is personal involvement in it. We saw how
Lwaxana reacted to essentially the same topic, at least initially. Perhaps the
writers are planning on giving us a look at Riker's past. Riker isn't the type
to have let go of the anger he would have felt at whoever had committed suicide
when he was young. Have they said anything about his mother? Hmm.
- -
- Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M -
- DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BRO...@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
- -
Jeffrey P Rupley
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>scene at this point in time.
>
>mentions a paper Bev wrote on cybernetic regeneration. *Very* smart; in
>"11001001", she was doing some research in just that area. Nice attention to
>detail.
>
the Borg episode where she'll probably have to help de-Borg someone with
those types of techniques, if what I've heard about the episode is correct.
>
>--So Geordi can see the cards while playing poker? Neat, but it might end up
>opening a nasty can of worms next game. As long as they remember. :-)
They did say that Worf used a deck transparent to infrared (or some
wavelength), implying that normally they use decks that Geordi can't see
through.
-rupley
Vicki Holzhauer
"Ethics" SPOILERS:
(Sorry, but my ^L doesn't work when I come in over this phone line, so
spaces instead ...)
>The Klingon anatomy's many
>"unnecessary" redundancies are the very thing that saved his life. Beverly
>stonily bids farewell to Russell, and Worf begins the road back to recovery.
I was watching this with a group and couldn't help saying, "Oh, no,
it's going to be another Vulcan eyelid thing!" Last week we had a
throwback to "The Deadly Years" (Chekhov/Riker immunity to evil
infestation), this week redundant biological systems protecting an
alien race from blindness/DEATH.
We, too, wondered if Worf would be fully recovered in the seven days
before the next episode :-) and were relieved to see that he'd gotten
a reprieve because next week is a repeat ... :-)
--
Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
"I say, beware of all enterprises that require new
clothes ... " -- H. D. Thoreau
Laura Sabel
Very minor spoilers ahead.
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[synopsis and review deleted]
>2) The return of one of TNG's silliest concepts: the All-Red Surgical Gown.
>To quote Gina Goff back when "Samaritan Snare" premiered the thing, "Ah, the
>Cardinals' Center for Cardiac Corrections, where everyone's so busy
>contemplating the Oneness of Red that they don't pay any attention to being
>good surgeons!" Seriously, what's the bright idea behind these things?
>We've seen Bev and Pulaski in surgery without them, and they're simply
>distracting.
My personal theory: the red outfits allow them to neatly
sidestep the problem of whether or not to show the patient's
blood that inevitably gets splashed on the surgeons. If they
used surgical gowns of a different color (except maybe black,
which would be too funereal), they'd either have to show some
gore (a la M*A*S*H) or claim that blood just doesn't get
spilled in 24th-century surgery. Granted, they already imply
this by not showing any means of maintaining the patient's
blood supply... maybe there are tanks under the operating
table. :->
-Laura
sa...@cs.cornell.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
Spoilers ahead for "Ethics":
> - Troi/Alexander. You people in this newsgroup all seem to hate Troi.
Not I. And I *liked* the scene where Worf asks her to take care of Alexander;
as I said, nearly all of the Worf/Troi stuff was fine insofar as what they
*did* cover. My only objection is in the stuff they didn't cover, which I
thought was fairly important.
>like Alexander - it's cool how he's like a bratty little human kid.
You're on your own on this one, though. :-)
> - Worst scene: Riker's sanctimonious diatribe with Worf when refusing
>to help him commit suicide. Anybody seen the "Oscar Clip" from Wayne's World?
>They should have put this scene in there.
It went a little bit over the top (a judicious pause to answer the phone
just when Riker pulled up the chair made for some interesting comments from
the peanut gallery when I watched it :-) ), but I rather liked this one.
> - The surgery mostly worked.
Ehh. You're *definitely* on your own here. Couldn't stop laughing.
Tim Lynch
Timothy W. Lynch
>Very minor spoilers ahead.
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>2) The return of one of TNG's silliest concepts: the All-Red Surgical Gown.
>>To quote Gina Goff back when "Samaritan Snare" premiered the thing, "Ah, the
>>Cardinals' Center for Cardiac Corrections, where everyone's so busy
>>contemplating the Oneness of Red that they don't pay any attention to being
>>good surgeons!" Seriously, what's the bright idea behind these things?
>>We've seen Bev and Pulaski in surgery without them, and they're simply
>>distracting.
>My personal theory: the red outfits allow them to neatly
>sidestep the problem of whether or not to show the patient's
>blood that inevitably gets splashed on the surgeons.
Sure, from a film sense; but within the story, it would seem to actually get
in the way. You want to be able to see what you're doing as much as possible
even if you're up to your forearms in blood; and if you're wearing blood-
colored outfits, there's a certain "lost in the crowd" problem, no?
>spilled in 24th-century surgery. Granted, they already imply
>this by not showing any means of maintaining the patient's
>blood supply... maybe there are tanks under the operating
>table. :->
:-)
Tim Lynch
Michael Rawdon
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>scene at this point in time.
>Well, better than expected, but not particularly good...
Argh! This is the first episode in a while that made me want to go find
something else to do. Like watch grass grow. At night. :-)
I thought "Ethics" was (as I mentioned in a letter) virtually a manual on
how to write a lousy TNG episode. It was shallow, trite, and, well, I dunno
what else to say! :-)
>We'll have to see how the numbers turn out.
Aw, must we? (Sorry. :-)
>I'm still not entirely sure what was intended here, or how much of it worked.
>Elements of it worked quite well for me, while others were literally
>*laughably* bad. I'll see what I can sort out.
Well, none of it left me laughing. :-)
>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>*caring* about the positions being taken.
Eh. This part at least wasn't trite. :-) I *did* find it quite shallow,
however. I applaud them for only two points in this whole plot: First,
having the gumption to actually show Dr. (Helena? Yeah, yeah, I know
it wasn't :-) Russell's research causing someone's death; second, not having
her come in and apologize profusely at the end. Otherwise, I didn't see
that there was really very much here worth pointing out. Maybe if this
were a children's show, it would have worked.
> Both sides were well presented, at
>least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>as it could have been. Nice.
I didn't find it evenhanded in the least. I found it didactic right down
the line.
>It helped, of course, that Gates McFadden turned in her best performance in a
>long, *LONG* time here--probably as far back as "Remember Me", if not more
>so.
Yes; good performance. Wasted on the lousy material, I thought, though.
>(Those who insist that the TNG
>characters never disagree about anything will find a lot of counterexamples
>this week, from all the different attitudes about Worf's suicide to the
>Picard/Bev battle over whether to allow the genotronic procedure, to Troi
>upbraiding Worf about Alexander. But I digress.)
The Troi/Worf point was a good one, but the others I'm not so sure about,
largely because I found it difficult to grasp some of the points of view.
Picard's, in particular; he seemed to be taking a very one-sided position
in the whole affair, but you were just getting to some of that...
> Picard's "I'm staying
>above it all, but I respect his beliefs stance" made some sense at first, but
>seems a little worrisome in retrospect. In part, Picard's claim that Worf
>absolutely *would not* cope with his disability, even to the point of killing
>himself, seems a little incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually trying
>the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander. I'm not sure how I'll
>end up seeing that down the line.
It was very disconcerting to me, especially as the accident had only just
happened, and Picard was spouting some of these statements before they'd
even approached Worf with information on *conventional* treatments. It
seemed very unlike Picard: He was advocating giving in without even trying
anything, and then advocating trying the road of greater risk without trying
the one of lesser risk first.
>In part, the Troi/Alexander section of this plot didn't work very well for
>me. Yes, it was a good use of Troi *so far as it went*, and Alexander's
>reactions made some sense; but that's all. In particular, I got absolutely
>*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
>condition, and indeed seemed to be causing more problems than she solved.
That was my impression as well. Her sudden willingness to raise Alexander
if Worf died seemed quite unrealistic to me.
>And then...we come to the surgery itself. Better luck next time, guys
...and I think that's about all that really need to be said about that. :-)
Well, almost:
>4) Finally, and most importantly, there was really nothing keeping me
>interested. I knew the surgery would be difficult, and that Worf would play
>handball on Death's stoop for a while, and that in the end he'd live and be
>fully recovered. The only deviation from strict formula seemed to be when
>Worf actually "died"; but even then, it was just a matter of seeing how far
>the point would be stretched. I just couldn't get into it.
Me either. Especially on the fake death. The ONLY way they could have made
that pay off would have been to have actually killed him.
>Anyways...that's it for the long stuff. Now for some short takes:
>--Another quote during the surgery sequence:
> Nurse: "Cerebral cortex placed on life support."
> Tim: "They Saved Worf's Brain...and then redeemed it for valuable
> cash prizes!"
> (Okay, so I was in a weird mood. :-) )
There were many opportunities for one-liners in this one. When Riker brought
the knife in to Worf, we had the following one:
Riker: "I'm not going to make it that easy for you."
Michael: "I'm going to put the knife OVER HERE."
:-)
>--TNG has now unequivocally taken a stand on the right-to-die movement; not
>so much with Worf, but with Picard's analogy to Riker about a terminally ill
>patient. Just for those keeping track.
Now we can just wait for them to take a stand on the abortion rights
movement (a firmer one than the one in "The Masterpiece Society", that is...)
>--So Geordi can see the cards while playing poker? Neat, but it might end up
>opening a nasty can of worms next game. As long as they remember. :-)
>TOTAL: 5, rounding down a bit for general atmosphere. Okay, but hardly
>terrific.
Glagh. This one gets a very solid F from my camp. If it wasn't for its
"unintended humor potential" I dunno what I would have done. :-)
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
Not a model man, not a savior or a saint.
Imperfect in a word, make no mistake.
But I give you everything I have. Take me as I am...
- King Crimson, "Model Man"
Anthony G. Francis
>And then...we come to the surgery itself. Better luck next time, guys--with
>only a couple of exceptions, I laughed my way through the entire fifth act ...
> ... let's go through this in detail:
>1) Anyone who's been reading these for a while knows that I don't usually
>care *that* much about scientific accuracy in TNG. The one exception is
>usually when the entire plot hinges on a point that's simply absurd. "A
>Matter of Perspective" did it two seasons ago with absolutely incorrect
>explanations of a time delay, and "Ethics" did it here. Having to take a DNA
>sample from the spinal column when DNA coding is identical in every cell?
Sorry, that's not true.
Genetic coding is different in every tissue type, and possibly in _every
cell_ as well. Genes are activated, amplified, deactivated and in general
screwed with during the process of differentiation, and the TNG writers
know this (which is why in "Up the Long Ladder" or some such episode
that the clone race takes cells from Pulaski's and Riker's _stomach_,
on the grounds that those cells are the most undifferentiated cells in the
human body. I don't know if _that_ particular assertion is correct
(about stomach lining cells being the most undifferentiated) but the principle
is the important thing, and TNG writers nodded to it the best they could).
The rest of the surgery was so-so. I agree that the backup semantic network
was a bit flaky, especially after the time elapsed.
That should read backup _synaptic_ network. God, I've been doing AI too long...
>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
This scene was fantastic; the characters were depicted _desperately_ trying
to ignore the surgery with meaningless details (hence the long shot) and then
when they confronted the reality that one of their friends had a one-in-three
shot of living, the camera focuses in on those beautiful closeups, in almost
a shot-reverse-shot technique. The rest of the episode, sadly, didn't live
up to that stellar bit of cinematography. Still, it gave me chills. Actual
_cinematography_ and _shot design_ on _Star Trek_! Motivated closeups! Amazing!
>--I've seen rumours that Dr. Russell was originally supposed to be Dr.
>Pulaski. This time, unlike Valeris replacing Saavik in ST6, I fully support
>the change. Pulaski may have been a bit bullheaded at times, and may have
>been crusty, but I can't for a moment imagine her being that callous.
I totally agree, although I saw shades of Pulaski in Russell. Faint shades
of grey --- sorry, couldn't resist the pun ...
I also agree that Bev crackled in this show. Great ending speech.
-Anthony
--
Anthony G. Francis, Jr. - Georgia Tech {Atl.,GA 30332}
Internet Mail Address: - cen...@cc.gatech.edu
UUCP Address: - ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4864b
-------------------------------Quote of the post-------------------------------
"Just take the money and run, and if they give you a hassle, blow them away."
- collected in a verbal protocol for the Bankrobber AI Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald (Jerry) KUCH
Then again, maybe the real reason is that they're just using borrowed costumes
from Cronenberg's "Dead Ringers". The director's excuse there was that the
red surgical gowns added sort of an otherworldly, almost religious aspect to
the surgical proceedings. It wouldn't be the first time that TNG borrowed
props from elsewhere...
--
J. Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) | "I saw Confucious at Kentucky Fried Chicken."
"Hey, Mr. Donut Head Man...who's trying to kill you?" -- Garth Algar
"I don't know...but they better not...AAAAHHH!! AARRHHHH!! AAAGHH!!"
"Arrrghhh...This Is Bad! I'm not happy!" -- Mr. Donut Head Man
Robert J. Granvin
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>scene at this point in time.
>Well, better than expected, but not particularly good...
If a main character or two were to unexpectedly die on occasion (without
weeks of media hype - I mean just plain old up and die), I'd have found
this episode more interesting. Unlike some other shows which will just
for the sake of "shock value" if nothing else, off a main character,
Star Trek never has and likely never will. (And when they do, they bring
them back to life :-). If such had ever happened before... Even once,
I might've found some tension (and therefore be interested) in this
episode.
Otherwise, this episode held no interest. It didn't even have much of a
message to take it's place. It just hung around for 40-some odd minutes
until we got to the end... The mystery was figuring out how they were going
to have Worf survive... :-)
>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
Strangely enough, I was PLEASED to see this.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not a really big fan of the style, nor am I really
interested in seeing it very often, but it worked OK. Mostly, however, it
was DIFFERENT. It was nice to see a change of pace (I don't care if the
change of pace was better or worse... It was _different_...)
>back to full and complete health by the next show, I fully expect this to
>never come up again. I hope I'm wrong.
I kept thinking this was like trying to replace the axle on a 1972 Cutlass
Supreme... You know you'll get the part ... Eventually ... But you're not
entirely certain it'll work or fit.
I wonder if he has to come in for regular maintenance, oil and lube...
>--On the other hand, when Worf was looking for a suitable parent for
>Alexander, why did he suddenly forget he had a brother? I could understand
>if he decided against it based on his experiences with Kurn, but his parents
>*aren't* the only relatives he's got, after all...
Would you want to be raised by Kurn? He doesn't even seem to know _which_
way to wind is blowing half the time. I've gotta agree with Worf. Troi
would be better than Kurn (and I'm basing that purely on parental, not
decorative, abilities... :-)
>--So Geordi can see the cards while playing poker? Neat, but it might end up
>opening a nasty can of worms next game. As long as they remember. :-)
Unless Data remembers to bring cards with ink that aren't sensitive to
ultraviolet light...
>--The music was nondescript, but not a real problem.
There was music? :-)
--
Robert J. Granvin Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force
Public Information Officer 612/922-2382
r...@sialis.com || rjg%siali...@uunet.uu.net || ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg
Chip Salzenberg
>... claim that blood just doesn't get spilled in 24th-century surgery
>Granted, they already imply this by not showing any means of maintaining
>the patient's blood supply...
Even now in the 20th century, bloodless surgery is safest and results
in quicker recovery and reduced incidence of post-op infection. I'd
not expect those lessons to be forgotten by the 24th century.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <ch...@tct.com>, <7371...@compuserve.com>
"Informix 4GL is not a 4G, and it's barely an L." -- John Tombs
Matthew Gertz
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>scene at this point in time.
>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>*caring* about the positions being taken. Both sides were well presented, at
>least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>as it could have been. Nice.
It definitely got me thinking, I'll say that much. My own research is
certainly not as life-threatening as Russell's, nor does it have the scope,
but ocassionally I do get drawn into arguments about the ethics involved
(e.g. "Doesn't it bother you that your research into robotics contributes
to the loss of jobs by the American worker?" etc. -- research ethics has
more than once been called to my attention (never mind that I work primarily
on space robotics technology!)). Perhaps you recall that I liked "New Ground"
because, even though it was poorly executed, the Worf/Alexander plotline
struck a chord with my own past -- well, here's another episode that really
clicked with me, due to the research angle (funny that it's another Worf/
Alexander story, though!)
I agree that the discussion of ethics was presented a little one-sided,
and I wanted Russell to blast back at Bev after the latter's rather (IMO)
hypocritical speech (Bev has been known to resort to a few untested
procedures herself in the past, although I suppose the angle here was that
Worf was not in danger of dying if he didn't have the surgery, except by
suicide.) One wonders what Bev's reaction would be if Geordi walked in one
day and said, "Doc, give me new eyes. I know there's a chance a may lose all
my vision, but give them to me anyway." Would Pulaski do it? Well, she
actually suggested it back in season two. Would Bev do it? I kinda doubt
it, after this episode.
>It helped, of course, that Gates McFadden turned in her best performance in a
>long, *LONG* time here--probably as far back as "Remember Me", if not more
>so. It goes to show what kind of performance she's capable of with a meaty
>role, I suppose, but this was the most passion-filled performance I've seen
>from her in many a moon. In particular, both her scene in triage with the
>dead passenger from the crashed ship and her final scene with Russell after
>surgery were real tour de forces. She *crackled*; something which neither
>the actor nor the character gets much of a chance to do often. Watching the
>ethical battle unfold, and Bev really let loose within it, was definitely the
>high point of the show. (Not to slight Caroline Kava, the woman who played
>Dr. Russell; she was also very good.)
Gates definitely turned in a top notch performance. I found the role of
the single-minded researcher, however, to be slightly one-dimensional. (I'm
also irked that whenever a scientist comes aboard the Ent., someone always
says "That was quite a good paper you wrote on so-and-so." It always comes
across as rather fake to me, perhaps because I've never come across it
actually happening in real life. Maybe we're just rude in robotics
research 8^)
>Elements of Worf's suicide thoughts were also well done, though significantly
>less so. His initial request to Riker was sudden and shocking, just as it
>should be. Riker's absolute detestation of the idea was a little surprising,
>though not much, and was understandable. (Those who insist that the TNG
>characters never disagree about anything will find a lot of counterexamples
>this week, from all the different attitudes about Worf's suicide to the
>Picard/Bev battle over whether to allow the genotronic procedure, to Troi
>upbraiding Worf about Alexander. But I digress.)
Riker's stand was very surprising to me as well, but it's nice to discover
something about a character that you didn't know before. (Same goes for
Bev, though I'm not sure I agreed with either of them, Bev especially.)
> Picard's "I'm staying
>above it all, but I respect his beliefs stance" made some sense at first, but
>seems a little worrisome in retrospect. In part, Picard's claim that Worf
>absolutely *would not* cope with his disability, even to the point of killing
>himself, seems a little incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually trying
>the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander.
Picard's stance was my one characterization complaint with this episode.
He was a little *too* stand-offish for me. It would have been nice to see
him in a scene visiting with Worf, just to see what the reaction would have
been when physically confronted with Worf's inability to move. He was also
a bit too quick to jump to the "Worf's a Klingon, therefore his life is
over" bit. In fact, I was a little uncomfortable with it. ("Those Klingons,
they just don't think the way we do...")
>In particular, I got absolutely
>*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
>condition,
Personally, if such a scene had existed in an earlier version of this script,
I'm glad they cut it out; the one sure-fire way to ruin this episode would've
been for Troi to start throwing her ambiguous psychobabble at Worf. (Or
worse, have Worf, in the midst of his extreme emotions, lucidly take her up
on some of her advice.) For my part, I'll assume that she did talk to Worf,
probably more than once, but I'm glad it was off-camera.
>[It also didn't help that Alexander's "this is that Klingon stuff, isn't it?"
>scene demonstrated that Alexander is likely to have zero Klingon traits
>beyond physical appearance, which I simply don't find very interesting in
>isolation.]
It may not be interesting, but it is an accurate characterization based on
Alexander's past (i.e. the episode where K'ehlayr was killed) -- "I don't
want to be a warrior."
>Having to take a DNA
>sample from the spinal column when DNA coding is identical in every cell?
I'll buy this. Cells differentiate a lot after conception. While each cell
has the same DNA, there are also other differences which I think would have
to be catalogued. Rationalization mode on: DNA was not the only information
being read in the information scan.
>The "backup synaptic network" somehow jump-starting Worf's *HEART*? The BSN
>taking so long to kick in that oxygen starvation should leave Worf
>irrevocably brain-damaged?
Again, I didn't have a big problem with this. Klingons obviously have a
vastly different biology than ours. Applying human traits (oxygen starvation,
etc.) to such a system just doesn't work. For all we know, oxygen starvation
in Klingons might take a half-hour or more. It's certainly no worse than
Spock having a second eyelid to protect him from blindness, and lightyears
ahead of Spock living without his brain for 24 hours (or the entire third
season of TOS, depending on your viewpoint 8^) At least Worf didn't leap
off the operating table when it was done, or guide Bev through the
operation when she and Russell were stumped.
>2) The return of one of TNG's silliest concepts: the All-Red Surgical Gown.
Ever see "Dead Ringer?" That's what I though of.
>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
I liked that scene very much; I still do. To each his own, I guess. I get
tired of the same old boring shots, and I was pleased at the direction in this
episode (in particular, having the camera looking "up" at Worf when he was
talking to Alexander with the aid of the leg supports, showing how "big"
Worf was, physically and emotionally, in Alexander's eyes.) Nicely done.
>4) Finally, and most importantly, there was really nothing keeping me
>interested. I knew the surgery would be difficult, and that Worf would play
>handball on Death's stoop for a while, and that in the end he'd live and be
>fully recovered. The only deviation from strict formula seemed to be when
>Worf actually "died"; but even then, it was just a matter of seeing how far
>the point would be stretched. I just couldn't get into it.
All episodes are predictable in that sense. My attention was held pretty
well, especially during the Bev scenes and the Riker scenes.
>--I've seen rumours that Dr. Russell was originally supposed to be Dr.
>Pulaski. This time, unlike Valeris replacing Saavik in ST6, I fully support
>the change. Pulaski may have been a bit bullheaded at times, and may have
>been crusty, but I can't for a moment imagine her being that callous.
I dunno -- she was quite willing to risk exposing the crew to the old-age
virus, until Picard *made* her find an alternative -- in fact, explicitly
forbidding her to experiment unless there was a way not to put anyone at risk.
She even went so far as to talk to Troi about Picard and dealing with him
before actually coming up with another solution. She also discussed
replacing Geordi's eyes using experimental surgical techniques. I think
a Bev/Pulaski showdown would have been *really* fun. They're so different.
>--Someone did their homework. When Dr. Russell first comes on board, she
>mentions a paper Bev wrote on cybernetic regeneration. *Very* smart; in
>"11001001", she was doing some research in just that area. Nice attention to
>detail.
Well, I've already stated what I felt about *that*... 8^)
>
>--TNG has now unequivocally taken a stand on the right-to-die movement; not
>so much with Worf, but with Picard's analogy to Riker about a terminally ill
>patient. Just for those keeping track.
... but came up with no definite solution. Worf and Picard took one side,
Bev and Riker the other, but that particular ethics controversy was shoved
aside when Worf agreed to the surgery (perhaps another form of attempted
suicide on his part), bringing into question the *other* ethics question.
>--The music was nondescript, but not a real problem.
We're just going to disagree a lot on this one, aren't we? 8^) This is one
of the few recent episodes where I really liked the music. One of the few
where I actually *noticed* the music.
>Plot: 5. 9 for Bev/Russell, 5 for Worf/suicide, and 1 for the surgery.
>Plot Handling/Direction: 4, most of it for the Bev/Russell handling. Chip
> Chalmers is not likely to pick up the nickname "Ingmar" any time
> soon. :-)
>Characterization/Acting: 8. Definitely the strongest part of the show.
>
>TOTAL: 5, rounding down a bit for general atmosphere. Okay, but hardly
>terrific.
I'd say 8, 9, and 9, for an 8.66. I consider it an hour well-invested.
--
Matt Gertz, mwge...@cs.cmu.edu
Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1992Mar8.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>>scene at this point in time.
>>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>>struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>>*caring* about the positions being taken.
>Eh. This part at least wasn't trite. :-) I *did* find it quite shallow,
>however. I applaud them for only two points in this whole plot: First,
>having the gumption to actually show Dr. (Helena? Yeah, yeah, I know
>it wasn't :-) Russell's research causing someone's death; second, not having
>her come in and apologize profusely at the end. Otherwise, I didn't see
>that there was really very much here worth pointing out.
You haven't had your ethics called into question publicly lately, either.
I find it very amusing that this show was filmed during *exactly* that week
that the "Journalistic ethics" debate was flaring on r.a.s...it's pure
coincidence, but it's cute nonetheless.
Regardless, I think there was a great deal to be worked with here. Medical
ethics and the "needs of the many vs. needs of the one" argument are always
welcome if handled well. I'm sure that's where we differ, naturally.
>> Both sides were well presented, at
>>least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
>>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>>as it could have been. Nice.
>I didn't find it evenhanded in the least. I found it didactic right down
>the line.
You didn't buy a single line of Russell's argument? Her point about "how would
you feel if this research saved the life of someone you love in a few years?"
didn't strike a single chord? If so, you're welcome to that opinion, but I
simply can't see it.
>> Picard's "I'm staying
>>above it all, but I respect his beliefs stance" made some sense at first, but
>>seems a little worrisome in retrospect. In part, Picard's claim that Worf
>>absolutely *would not* cope with his disability, even to the point of killing
>>himself, seems a little incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually trying
>>the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander. I'm not sure how I'll
>>end up seeing that down the line.
>It was very disconcerting to me, especially as the accident had only just
>happened, and Picard was spouting some of these statements before they'd
>even approached Worf with information on *conventional* treatments.
I've forgottten in what order that occurred; are you sure the Picard/Riker
conversation happened before the initial talk of the implants? (Actually,
thinking about it, you're probably right.) Hmm.
>>In part, the Troi/Alexander section of this plot didn't work very well for
>>me. Yes, it was a good use of Troi *so far as it went*, and Alexander's
>>reactions made some sense; but that's all. In particular, I got absolutely
>>*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
>>condition, and indeed seemed to be causing more problems than she solved.
>That was my impression as well. Her sudden willingness to raise Alexander
>if Worf died seemed quite unrealistic to me.
Oh, no. That was just fine; I jusvt had problems with what she *didn't* do,
rather than what she did.
>There were many opportunities for one-liners in this one. When Riker brought
>the knife in to Worf, we had the following one:
> Riker: "I'm not going to make it that easy for you."
> Michael: "I'm going to put the knife OVER HERE."
>:-)
Actually, thanks to a phone call at just that moment, the VCR was paused in
such a way that Riker looked as though he was about to stab himself in the
groin. Lots of one-liners came out of that one. :-)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it also is a
process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."
--Allan Sandage
Timothy W. Lynch
>Tim Lynch writes:
>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>>scene at this point in time.
>>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>>struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>>*caring* about the positions being taken. Both sides were well presented, at
>>least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
>>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>>as it could have been. Nice.
>It definitely got me thinking, I'll say that much.
I think that was the point. :-)
>My own research is
>certainly not as life-threatening as Russell's, nor does it have the scope,
>but ocassionally I do get drawn into arguments about the ethics involved
>(e.g. "Doesn't it bother you that your research into robotics contributes
>to the loss of jobs by the American worker?" etc. -- research ethics has
>more than once been called to my attention (never mind that I work primarily
>on space robotics technology!)). Perhaps you recall that I liked "New Ground"
>because, even though it was poorly executed, the Worf/Alexander plotline
>struck a chord with my own past -- well, here's another episode that really
>clicked with me, due to the research angle (funny that it's another Worf/
>Alexander story, though!)
That might have something to do with it. I don't have any basis like that
in my research [let's face it, cosmology isn't likely to threaten lives or
steal jobs :-) ], but I've had enough ethical arguments around (some of them
here) that this rang very true.
>One wonders what Bev's reaction would be if Geordi walked in one
>day and said, "Doc, give me new eyes. I know there's a chance a may lose all
>my vision, but give them to me anyway." Would Pulaski do it? Well, she
>actually suggested it back in season two. Would Bev do it? I kinda doubt
>it, after this episode.
I think she would--*if* Geordi made it clear that he knew the risks as well as
he could and wanted to go for it anyway. I think her main objection was in
Russell ducking the rules and taking *advantage* or Worf.
>Gates definitely turned in a top notch performance. I found the role of
>the single-minded researcher, however, to be slightly one-dimensional.
Slightly, but not particularly. Then again, single mind, single dimension,
what's the difference? :-)
>(I'm
>also irked that whenever a scientist comes aboard the Ent., someone always
>says "That was quite a good paper you wrote on so-and-so." It always comes
>across as rather fake to me, perhaps because I've never come across it
>actually happening in real life. Maybe we're just rude in robotics
>research 8^)
Perhaps. I've seen it. :-)
>Picard's stance was my one characterization complaint with this episode.
>He was a little *too* stand-offish for me. It would have been nice to see
>him in a scene visiting with Worf, just to see what the reaction would have
>been when physically confronted with Worf's inability to move.
I agree. Something more was needed to justify why he was so quick to judge
the situation in the way he did. He had a point, but it wasn't so clear-cut
as he made it out to be.
>>In particular, I got absolutely
>>*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
>>condition,
>Personally, if such a scene had existed in an earlier version of this script,
>I'm glad they cut it out; the one sure-fire way to ruin this episode would've
>been for Troi to start throwing her ambiguous psychobabble at Worf.
Even if Worf did his best to toss her bodily out of the room when she tried
it? That seems the most likely reaction. And I still think the evidence
suggests she never even considered *Worf's* side of this, which I find
considerably lacking.
>>[It also didn't help that Alexander's "this is that Klingon stuff, isn't it?"
>>scene demonstrated that Alexander is likely to have zero Klingon traits
>>beyond physical appearance, which I simply don't find very interesting in
>>isolation.]
>It may not be interesting, but it is an accurate characterization based on
>Alexander's past (i.e. the episode where K'ehlayr was killed) -- "I don't
>want to be a warrior."
In the interim, he's been living with Worf for several months; and he never
said he didn't want to be a Klingon, simply a warrior. It gets old.
>>Having to take a DNA
>>sample from the spinal column when DNA coding is identical in every cell?
>I'll buy this.
After Anthony Francis's correction, so will I. It seems a stretch, but
far less of one.
>>The "backup synaptic network" somehow jump-starting Worf's *HEART*? The BSN
>>taking so long to kick in that oxygen starvation should leave Worf
>>irrevocably brain-damaged?
>Again, I didn't have a big problem with this. Klingons obviously have a
>vastly different biology than ours.
Not *that* different. This one I'll stand by.
>It's certainly no worse than
>Spock having a second eyelid to protect him from blindness, and lightyears
>ahead of Spock living without his brain for 24 hours (or the entire third
>season of TOS, depending on your viewpoint 8^)
That's true; but now ask me what I thought of *those* two little gems. :-)
>>2) The return of one of TNG's silliest concepts: the All-Red Surgical Gown.
>Ever see "Dead Ringer?" That's what I though of.
No, I haven't.
>>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
>I liked that scene very much; I still do. To each his own, I guess.
Apparently. I'll have to rewatch it sometime when I'm in a less silly mood
and see if it sits any better. It had its effective moments, but I just
couldn't get past it.
>tired of the same old boring shots, and I was pleased at the direction in this
>episode (in particular, having the camera looking "up" at Worf when he was
>talking to Alexander with the aid of the leg supports, showing how "big"
>Worf was, physically and emotionally, in Alexander's eyes.) Nicely done.
Oh, that was nice, but that's old stuff; the same thing was done, to far
better effect, right after K'Ehleyr died in "Reunion".
>>4) Finally, and most importantly, there was really nothing keeping me
>>interested. I knew the surgery would be difficult, and that Worf would play
>>handball on Death's stoop for a while, and that in the end he'd live and be
>>fully recovered. The only deviation from strict formula seemed to be when
>>Worf actually "died"; but even then, it was just a matter of seeing how far
>>the point would be stretched. I just couldn't get into it.
>All episodes are predictable in that sense.
But most episodes don't structure the whole show on that predictable point.
This one did.
>My attention was held pretty
>well, especially during the Bev scenes and the Riker scenes.
The paragraph above was applying just to the final act--the surgery itself.
I found most of the arguments in the early part of the show very interesting
as well.
>>--I've seen rumours that Dr. Russell was originally supposed to be Dr.
>>Pulaski. This time, unlike Valeris replacing Saavik in ST6, I fully support
>>the change. Pulaski may have been a bit bullheaded at times, and may have
>>been crusty, but I can't for a moment imagine her being that callous.
>I dunno -- she was quite willing to risk exposing the crew to the old-age
>virus, until Picard *made* her find an alternative -- in fact, explicitly
>forbidding her to experiment unless there was a way not to put anyone at risk.
She didn't think the crew *was* going to be exposed; she was unconsciously
minimizing the risks, I think.
>replacing Geordi's eyes using experimental surgical techniques.
And made it damned clear to Geordi what the risks would be should she fail.
Russell utterly failed to do that.
>I think
>a Bev/Pulaski showdown would have been *really* fun. They're so different.
So do I; just not in this context.
>>--TNG has now unequivocally taken a stand on the right-to-die movement; not
>>so much with Worf, but with Picard's analogy to Riker about a terminally ill
>>patient. Just for those keeping track.
>... but came up with no definite solution.
I disagree. Picard's analogy to Riker was perfectly accepted by both as an
instance where one might well look on death as a release, and was not seen as
a problem at all. *Worf*'s case wasn't solved, but the general one was.
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Michael Rawdon
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
>This scene was fantastic; the characters were depicted _desperately_ trying
>to ignore the surgery with meaningless details (hence the long shot) and then
>when they confronted the reality that one of their friends had a one-in-three
>shot of living, the camera focuses in on those beautiful closeups, in almost
>a shot-reverse-shot technique. The rest of the episode, sadly, didn't live
>up to that stellar bit of cinematography. Still, it gave me chills. Actual
>_cinematography_ and _shot design_ on _Star Trek_! Motivated closeups! Amazing!
I agree with Tim here; while the camera work was nice, it was too ostentatious
and the whole scene was so amazingly contrived. It didn't move the story
forward, it stopped it stock-still. It was another case (along with McFadden's
acting) of a worthless idea being executed nicely. And the execution doesn't
matter much to me if the underlying idea or purpose fails...
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"Go? Where are we going?"
"Where they went."
"What if they went nowhere?"
"Then, this will be your big chance to get away from it all."
- McCoy and Kirk; Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
Robert W. Brand
My friend and I thought that perhaps the design of the gown was in honor of
speed skater Bonnie Blair and the 1992 Winter Olympics. I was waiting for
Bev to put on some Oakley sunglasses.
--
Bob Brand
Motorola International Cellular
bo...@isdgsm.rtsg.mot.com
br...@rtsg.mot.com
Dave Ochs
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>scene at this point in time.
>
>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through the scene,
>we were saying "It's a Bergman film!" Then the closeups kicked in and we
>couldn't stop laughing. I haven't the slightest idea who thought that up,
>but I'd advise against repeating it. :-)
Actually, I though this was an unusual, and interesting scene. We *never*
see the characters just doing normal work. Riker and Picard aren't always
sitting in their chairs on the bridgs ... they have conferences and
"paperwork" to do. I thought it was great that they showed us one of those
times, and used it to show how they were distracted from their work by
Worf's uncertain condition.
Dave Ochs
da...@cv.hp.com
Stephen Dennison
>mwge...@cs.cmu.edu (Matthew Gertz) writes:
>>Tim Lynch writes:
>
>>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information on this week's
>>>TNG episode, "Ethics". Those not wishing to ponder the ethical question of
>>>seeing spoilers for a show they've not yet viewed might want to exit the
>>>scene at this point in time.
>>>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>>>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>>>struggle, hands down.
While I *have* to admit that I come down somewhere inbetween Crusher and
Russell, I think that Russell's position, by virtue of it's `extremeness',
was pretty much indefensible, making her *much* too easy a target for
Crusher. Also, if Gates doesn't get some other smile than that little fake
quickie she uses for *everything*, I'm gonna drive down to Paramount and
slap it off her face ! GOD That's an irritatingly *insincere* smile.
>>>That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>>>*caring* about the positions being taken. Both sides were well presented, at
>>>least to me:
Not *me*, as stated above.
>>>while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>>>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>>>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one.
Only when presented in such a `stacked-deck' manner. Russell was trying to
sell a supposedly `far sighted' position with a neatly `bracketed-in' bit
of circular logic. Bev was *correct* to have none of it, and I wasn't
really even `swayed' by it on first consideration.
>>> I wouldn't quite say that
>>>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>>>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>>>as it could have been.
On the principal *issue*, I certainlyagree, but Russell's *behavior* was
certainly an open-and-shut case as far as I could see. "Use an untried
medical theory, go to *jail* !" In Worf's case, there was *some* argument
for the experimental procedure... in the case of that wounded crewman, I
*really* think she should have been prosecuted.
>>> Nice.
Let's just say `interesting'.
.. on a related subject ...
>>(e.g. "Doesn't it bother you that your research into robotics contributes
>>to the loss of jobs by the American worker?" etc. -- research ethics has
>>more than once been called to my attention (never mind that I work primarily
>>on space robotics technology!)).
Due to the above statement, I would have expected *some* mention of this
from you, but *why* for gosh sakes, do 24th century surgeons still wield
the damn laser-scalpel *manually* ??? I'd *have* to think that a computer
guided cut would, after a scan of the area being cut and some minor
programming, be *much* more accurate than a hand-guided incision. *Yes*, I
know why it isn't depicted that way ... the F/X budget is already exhausted,
but it still irks me a bit.
>>Gates definitely turned in a top notch performance.
'cept for that *damned* smirk of hers...
>> I found the role of
>>the single-minded researcher, however, to be slightly one-dimensional.
Yup !
>
>Slightly, but not particularly. Then again, single mind, single dimension,
>what's the difference? :-)
I seem to recall a rather single-minded *and* (initially, anyway) single
dimensional character that wanted to take Data apart for most of an episode.
I found it *very* well handled when his character *blossomed* into 1.5
dimensions at the end. :-) Seriously, Russell *could* have shown a little
character growth *without* doing a *complete* turn around. For instance, a
*nice* twist might have been for her to have a breakdown when *forced* to
face the consequences of her choices, i.e., deal with the family of the
crewmember that her experimental drug killed.
>
>>(I'm
>>also irked that whenever a scientist comes aboard the Ent., someone always
>>says "That was quite a good paper you wrote on so-and-so." It always comes
>>across as rather fake to me, perhaps because I've never come across it
>>actually happening in real life. Maybe we're just rude in robotics
>>research 8^)
>
>Perhaps. I've seen it. :-)
I sat down with someone to discuss setting up a LAN in their division, and
they quoted *me* back to me from a paper I wrote on the LAN I set up for my
division. It was a real kick to point out the name of the author. :-)
It *does* happen.
>
>>Picard's stance was my one characterization complaint with this episode.
>>He was a little *too* stand-offish for me. It would have been nice to see
>>him in a scene visiting with Worf, just to see what the reaction would have
>>been when physically confronted with Worf's inability to move.
>
>I agree. Something more was needed to justify why he was so quick to judge
>the situation in the way he did. He had a point, but it wasn't so clear-cut
>as he made it out to be.
Damn! Now *I* bought this part. To me, it was Picard applying the Prime
Directive in a one-on-one situation. I think, as Worf's Chadeech (sp?), he
gained real insight into Klingon culture, and *immediately* recognized
Worf's right to remain true to his values and to be allowed to take his own
life. I *would* have liked to see a *bit* more grief from him, but I wrote
that off as Picard play-acting for Riker's sake. He knew Riker was *already*
pulling in that direction so, once he made the decision to support Worf's
choice, he masked his grief so as *not* to influence Riker.
>
>>>In particular, I got absolutely
>>>*NO* sense that Troi had done a single bit to counsel Worf about his current
>>>condition,
"I sense...great ...*RIDGES* on your back ... yeah, that's it ... that's
the ticket !"
Deanna "Pathological Betazoid" Troi
>
>>Personally, if such a scene had existed in an earlier version of this script,
>>I'm glad they cut it out; the one sure-fire way to ruin this episode would've
>>been for Troi to start throwing her ambiguous psychobabble at Worf.
>
>Even if Worf did his best to toss her bodily out of the room when she tried
>it? That seems the most likely reaction. And I still think the evidence
>suggests she never even considered *Worf's* side of this, which I find
>considerably lacking.
>
Worf is a lot like polyesther... very `shrink' resistant. :-)
Perhaps Troi, having *already* tried to counsel Worf in other situations,
`sensed' his resolve in this matter.
>>>--I've seen rumours that Dr. Russell was originally supposed to be Dr.
>>>Pulaski. This time, unlike Valeris replacing Saavik in ST6, I fully support
>>>the change. Pulaski may have been a bit bullheaded at times, and may have
>>>been crusty, but I can't for a moment imagine her being that callous.
>
>>I dunno -- she was quite willing to risk exposing the crew to the old-age
>>virus, until Picard *made* her find an alternative -- in fact, explicitly
>>forbidding her to experiment unless there was a way not to put anyone at risk.
>
>She didn't think the crew *was* going to be exposed; she was unconsciously
>minimizing the risks, I think.
Unconciously my butt ! She had *every* reason to believe that the `child'
from the genetic research place *wasn't* a risk... all her instincts and
*all* of the technology at her disposal *telling* her that it was safe.
The "but we *may* be facing the unknown" angle *didn't* wash in that
episode. Hell, all that was missing was Q telling Picard that, if he didn't
want to get his nose bloodied, he shouldn't have been out there.
I, for one, could *never* have pictured Pulaski in the Russell role. *Way*
out of character, though the acting *undoubtedly* would have been better.
>
>>I think
>>a Bev/Pulaski showdown would have been *really* fun. They're so different.
>
>So do I; just not in this context.
100% agreement on *both* counts. I'd welcome Pulaski back under any
circumstances.
Stephen
If you love a thing, let it go. If it returns to you, let it go again...
and again ... and again ... and if it *keeps* coming back, have it committed !
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Mar9.1...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...
>>mwge...@cs.cmu.edu (Matthew Gertz) writes:
Spoilers for "Ethics":
>>>>while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>>>>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>>>>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one.
>Only when presented in such a `stacked-deck' manner.
A great many arguments seem to be "stacked-deck" to an adherent of the
opposite. I find myself repeatedly unable to understand the logic of those
opposite me in the abortion debate, for instance (and no, I'm not saying
any more than that here; it's not the place for it). When you come down to
it, a lot of arguments are stacked in some way or another--this one's no
different. Stacked or no, it *does* bring her POV home.
>>>> I wouldn't quite say that
>>>>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more
>>>>so, at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-
>>>>and-shut as it could have been.
>On the principal *issue*, I certainlyagree, but Russell's *behavior* was
>certainly an open-and-shut case as far as I could see.
True enough.
>>>Gates definitely turned in a top notch performance.
>'cept for that *damned* smirk of hers...
I'll worry about hers once Frakes's is surgically removed. It's much more
annoying. :-)
>Seriously, Russell *could* have shown a little
>character growth *without* doing a *complete* turn around. For instance, a
>*nice* twist might have been for her to have a breakdown when *forced* to
>face the consequences of her choices, i.e., deal with the family of the
>crewmember that her experimental drug killed.
Hmm. Interesting idea, but I think any more attention to the crashed-ship
plot would have proved detrimental to the plot we *did* see.
>>>Picard's stance was my one characterization complaint with this episode.
>>>He was a little *too* stand-offish for me. It would have been nice to see
>>>him in a scene visiting with Worf, just to see what the reaction would have
>>>been when physically confronted with Worf's inability to move.
>>
>>I agree. Something more was needed to justify why he was so quick to judge
>>the situation in the way he did. He had a point, but it wasn't so clear-cut
>>as he made it out to be.
>Damn! Now *I* bought this part. To me, it was Picard applying the Prime
>Directive in a one-on-one situation. I think, as Worf's Chadeech (sp?), he
>gained real insight into Klingon culture, and *immediately* recognized
>Worf's right to remain true to his values and to be allowed to take his own
>life.
I'm not arguing about Picard's acceptance of Worf's right. I'm arguing about
Picard's inability to even *consider* that Worf might break with tradition,
when he's seen Worf do so many times previously.
Tim Lynch
Janet Christian
OK, here's my question.
When Pulaski suddenly started getting old (I forget the episode) they used
live cells to put a trace pattern into the transporter and beamed her
through it, using it as a "filter". Why couldn't they just do that with
Worf? I'm sure he has good trace patterns already in the transporter "log"
(or whatever). In fact, why don't they do that with anyone who suddenly
gets "damaged" in some way? Yea, I know, there would be no "neat" medical
plots :-). But, other than that, why don't they ever try it?
Janet
--
Janet Christian jchri...@indetech.com
My boss agrees with everything I say - well, actually, he thinks I'm working.
"Never argue with a Scorpio - it's frustrating and you'll lose, anyway..."
Kenneth Bogle
>In <centaur....@cc.gatech.edu> cen...@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis) writes:
>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>3) The Picard/Riker scene. Honest to God, I think the director was trying
>>>to be Ingmar Bergman. [Lots of slooooooooowly paced dialogue, odd and
>>>unnecessary closeups...that sort of thing.] About halfway through
the scene
This thread got me to thinking about truly excellent camera
work in TNG and TOS. Methinks that it is few and far between, but
when it is good, it is VERY good. The best example I can think of is
the "Gilgamesh Story Scene" from "Darmok." Watch that scene over
again, it is just brilliant. Starts with a long shot, moves closer
as the characters interact more, thoughtful switching between Picard
and the other captain, a long pan as Picard tells his story. The
camera work is unobtrusive, yet interesting and relevant to the
action. And the lighting -- few people notice this -- but note how
the firelight plays off of Picard's face as he tells the tale. The
light grows brighter as the action in the story increases, and then,
as the alien captain dies and Picard reaches the end of the story
("..and Gilgamesh wept bitter tears, saying he who was my friend...")
the light is notably grey and dim...
My thoughts. What are your nominations?
Kenneth Bogle
>I thought that Riker and Picard had the best lines in the entire show.
>Riker's revulsion was not surprising at all as we've been exposed to his
>feelings on moral matters on several occassions and he always reacts the
>same. Picard's stance made perfect sense. After his experiences with Worf
>on the Klingon homeworld he knows better than any of them what makes his
>security officer tick--and he knows that Worf WILL kill himself if it comes
>to that. Picard was being realistic--Riker and Crusher were merely being
>righteous.
I have to disagree. It seemed for such an important member of the
crew, people were acting awfully lackadaisical concerning Worf's
injury. I know that the writers/producers were trying to avoid the
tear-jerking cliche, but a little more "oh-no" feeling, particularly
at the start, would have made the episode seem more realistic.
Andrew Pearlman
>In case this should still be a spoiler, I'll add some blank lines:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>OK, here's my question.
>
>When Pulaski suddenly started getting old (I forget the episode) they used
>live cells to put a trace pattern into the transporter and beamed her
>through it, using it as a "filter". Why couldn't they just do that with
>Worf? I'm sure he has good trace patterns already in the transporter "log"
>(or whatever). In fact, why don't they do that with anyone who suddenly
>gets "damaged" in some way? Yea, I know, there would be no "neat" medical
>plots :-). But, other than that, why don't they ever try it?
Following the logic of TNG, it is probably the following:
Transporters can't create living material, they need a living cell to start
with in order to make one. Worf had definite dead cells, Pulaski's were
just aging really rapidly. Also, I think that treatment definitely
qualifies as a 'Don't attempt unless there is no other way.'
Andy Pearlman
Pat Berry
> In case this should still be a spoiler, I'll add some blank lines:
And I'll leave them in, for the same reason.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, here's my question.
>
> When Pulaski suddenly started getting old (I forget the episode) they used
> live cells to put a trace pattern into the transporter and beamed her
> through it, using it as a "filter". Why couldn't they just do that with
> Worf? I'm sure he has good trace patterns already in the transporter "log"
> (or whatever). In fact, why don't they do that with anyone who suddenly
> gets "damaged" in some way? Yea, I know, there would be no "neat" medical
> plots :-). But, other than that, why don't they ever try it?
On page 109 of the TNG Tech Manual, Sternbach and Okuda have this to
say:
"In Star Trek: The Next Generation, transporter technology is further
postulated to have been advanced to the point where it can be used to
replicate objects. This is a nifty idea, but we must be careful to
limit the ability of the replicator, lest it become able to create any
rare or valuable object, and perhaps even bring dead people back to
life. Such abilities would be quite detrimental to dramatic
storytelling. The idea of replicated objects being stored at `molecular
resolution' instead of the `quantum resolution' necessary to re-create
living beings is a result of this concern. (Actually, there have been a
couple of occasions where the transporter has been improperly used to
save the day, but our writers have become more careful about such
things.)"
I think that this last comment refers to "Unnatural Selection". What
Sternbach and Okuda are saying, really, is that the whole business of
rejuvenating Dr. Pulaski was a mistake, but that all they can do now is
to ignore it and try not to make the same mistake again.
(For an interesting view of how life would change if we *could* store
and replicate living people, read James Hogan's short story "Assassin",
included in his collection _Minds, Machines, and Evolution_.)
Pat Berry p...@berry.Cary.NC.US
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1992Mar8.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>Of the several plots making up the show (Bev/Russell, Worf/suicide, and the
>>>surgery, the crashed ship), the most successful one was the Bev/Russell
>>>struggle, hands down. That was the one that drew me in and had me really
>>>*caring* about the positions being taken.
>>Eh. This part at least wasn't trite. :-) I *did* find it quite shallow,
>>however. I applaud them for only two points in this whole plot: First,
>>having the gumption to actually show Dr. (Helena? Yeah, yeah, I know
>>it wasn't :-) Russell's research causing someone's death; second, not having
>>her come in and apologize profusely at the end. Otherwise, I didn't see
>>that there was really very much here worth pointing out.
>You haven't had your ethics called into question publicly lately, either.
[...]
That's right, you probably don't get the local uwisc.forum group. :-)
>Regardless, I think there was a great deal to be worked with here. Medical
>ethics and the "needs of the many vs. needs of the one" argument are always
>welcome if handled well. I'm sure that's where we differ, naturally.
If you mean about its being handled well, yes, that is where we differ.
As far as a "needs of the one vs. needs of the many" argument goes, this one
was presented poorly, in that it leaned 99.9% toward Dr. Crusher's side.
Crusher refuses to get drawn into hypothetical arguments; Russell's work
on Worf only worked because of blind luck - nothing more, her experimentation
while treating the wounded caused a person's death unnecessarily, she was
presented as callous and nigh unto megalomaniacal. I don't think that the
show presented one shred of remotely convicing evidence in favor of Russell's
side. Which is fine if it was supposed to be a didactic piece, but falls
flat if it was intended to be thought-provoking.
>>> Both sides were well presented, at
>>>least to me: while I find Russell's style as contemptible and frightening as
>>>Beverly did, it *did* get the job done, and the hypothetical argument that
>>>Beverly refused to get drawn into is an nasty one. I wouldn't quite say that
>>>the subject got an evenhanded treatment (it probably could have been more so,
>>>at any rate), but it raised enough questions to avoid being as open-and-shut
>>>as it could have been. Nice.
>>I didn't find it evenhanded in the least. I found it didactic right down
>>the line.
>You didn't buy a single line of Russell's argument? Her point about "how would
>you feel if this research saved the life of someone you love in a few years?"
>didn't strike a single chord? If so, you're welcome to that opinion, but I
>simply can't see it.
I don't deal in potentials when someone's life is at stake right now.
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek then none at all."
- A friend, about the ST:TNG episode "Legacy"
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1992Mar9.1...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[...]
>>>that there was really very much here worth pointing out.
>>You haven't had your ethics called into question publicly lately, either.
>That's right, you probably don't get the local uwisc.forum group. :-)
Nope, nor would I read it. :-)
>>Regardless, I think there was a great deal to be worked with here. Medical
>>ethics and the "needs of the many vs. needs of the one" argument are always
>>welcome if handled well. I'm sure that's where we differ, naturally.
>If you mean about its being handled well, yes, that is where we differ.
That's what I meant, yes.
>As far as a "needs of the one vs. needs of the many" argument goes, this one
>was presented poorly, in that it leaned 99.9% toward Dr. Crusher's side.
I disagree that it went *that* far, but it definitely was stacked in favor of
Crusher. (It's also a not overly rare situation; a friend of mine in CS
remarked after seeing this show that someone else in her department is about
as slipshod and uncaring about the consequences of his work, with the potential
for equally devastating results.)
>Crusher refuses to get drawn into hypothetical arguments;
Which says nothing about the *show* mentioning just such arguments. Being
"99.9% [on] Dr. Crusher's side" would almost necessitate showing *no* argu-
ments in favor of Russell's position, I think. They didn't go into that
one in detail, but they *did* mention it; and it's gotten a few people
thinking on this very group.
>Russell's work
>on Worf only worked because of blind luck - nothing more, her experimentation
>while treating the wounded caused a person's death unnecessarily, she was
>presented as callous and nigh unto megalomaniacal.
More or less agreed here (although I think "megalomaniacal" is going a bit
far), but to be blunt, so what?
>I don't think that the
>show presented one shred of remotely convicing evidence in favor of Russell's
>side.
I think it presented thought-provoking *arguments* for her side. That's a
very different statement, and one which you've not rebutted.
>Which is fine if it was supposed to be a didactic piece, but falls
>flat if it was intended to be thought-provoking.
The number of people whose thoughts have been provoked by this very
presentation does tend to point up the local nature of your statement,
methinks. But maybe it's just me. :-)
>>>I didn't find it evenhanded in the least. I found it didactic right down
>>>the line.
>>You didn't buy a single line of Russell's argument? Her point about "how
>>would you feel if this research saved the life of someone you love in a few
>>years?" didn't strike a single chord? If so, you're welcome to that
>>opinion, but I simply can't see it.
>I don't deal in potentials when someone's life is at stake right now.
Nor do I, and I'm glad to hear it. Of course, it has nothing to do with the
question I asked, since you *didn't* have to worry about someone's life.
Tim Lynch
David Mears
> In part, Picard's claim that Worf absolutely *would not* cope with his
> disability, even to the point of killing himself, seems a little
> incongruous given that we SEE Worf actually trying the conventional
> treatment while talking to Alexander.
I had a different take on that scene. I don't believe that Worf was
`trying the conventional treatment while talking to Alexander.' I
believe that Worf, when forced to confront Alexander, just couldn't
stand (sorry, no pun intended ;-) to have Alexander see him totally
helpless. The only way he would permit Alexander to see him was if
he was able to stand on his own two feet and be imposing. At that
point, using the electronic helpers was the only way he could do that.
I think the point was even emphasized when Worf yelled for Alexander
to leave after he fell.
The whole thing shows a certain vanity on the part of Worf as Klngon
warrior. And it eventually shows growth on the part of the character
as he is later able to talk to Alexander while lying helpless before
the surgery.
> Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
> BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
> INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
> UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
hplabs!hpda!mears
me...@hpinddf.cup.hp.com
John J. Lopez
Also, it would be nice to see the crew out of uniform during their off
hours (I don't mean before they go to sleep either). I saw a rerun
(where the children are kidnapped), and in every scene, the child's
parents are in uniform in their own quarters.
I hate these new uniforms anyway.
--
John Lopez 646-3251 | Formerly nms...@lanl.gov
C-119 Garcia Hall |
New Mexico State University |
Las Cruces, NM 88003 |