Star Trek: Voyager Nothing Human
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Visit trekkies.agains... and help us send a message to J.J. Abrams that Star Trek is no place to glorify torture as he has done in Alias, Lost and in other projects.
Here: Excellent episode about medical ethics with SPECIAL guest star and human rights advocate David Clennon.
"Half the medical knowledge acquired on Earth came through experiments on lower animals!"
"But not on people!"
Umm, yeah, about that...
@ A lot of data we currently have about the effects of hypothermia came from such experiments, even though none would admit it. On the other side of the Atlantic, medical data from the Guatemala and Tuskegee syphilis experiments have also been used, although in these cases the results have been declared compromised and at best they're only good as a source of analysis failing.
Thing is, and I feel that this would have made the episode much stronger, the problem with most of the results obtained from unethical human experimentation is that most of the experiments/analysis were done poorly, with little control or a good review, meaning that rather than unethical, most of the results are unusable, cannot be reproduced or are not clear enough, and the only viable data from said experiments is either too little or you have to sift through an enormous amount of bad science and biased results, which means that you might as well flip a coin and see what's good and what's not.
Actually a lot of medical knowlege about the treatment of trauma used in emergency rooms all over the planet was the result of Nazi experimentation on Jews and others they called "undesirables".
Lot of pharmaceutical companies in Germany are same companies which done experiments in concentsration camps. They infect patients and test theyr medicins. Lot of this data was used by USA, GB, France and USSR/Russia. Also lot USSR was making terrible experiments on prisoners. So I wouldn't be do shure about purity of our medicine science.
I had a problem with this too. I wonder why the writers ignored human history
@@smileygabe22 Because they are ignorants. Science is not bad, only people are bad. Decline to use some science to benefit people is bad. Doctor is not bad because he is using medical procedure which was achived in bad way. In Auschwitz was dr Mengele, he was a monster not a dr, but some of his science is used now to help people. I Hope he burn in hell but it is a tribute for his victims to use theyr sufer to help others.
EMH: "We can't use this tool, its creator was a monster! Now hand me those Borg nanites."
It occurred to me last night that humans have stolen Borg technology in just the same way as the USA and Soviet Union stole Nazi technology in 1945. Operation Paperclip.
Doctor is being a hypothetic here.
The hologram is just a hologram of his creator , they're not the same person. They may share some similar personalities, but their morality and their mind ia their and their alone.
Doctor should be the one to know this the best,as he's too a hologram with his own mind.
Delete hologram Crell Moset because what the real Crell Moset did, means that people could just delete Doctor too, anytime when they don't like him or agree with him.
People could just delete Doctor because they hate Dr. Lewis Zimmerman, or they found out Zimmerman had some shady history.
1. This hologram didn't commit the atrocity.
2. What's done is done, the medical practice itself bears no ethical responsibility, unless the treatment in use today require the suffering of others.
3. Stupid to not use something that can save lifes especially considering you are so far from Federation territory and support.
Totally agree
I agree that The Doctor murdered that innocent hologram.
The relatives never seem to consider what their deceased would say about their "noble" intentions. They don't seem to consider that if they were alive for even 5 minutes and confronted with the situation, that they might say "If I died in agonizing pain, I'd rather something GOOD come out of it than an empty gesture of respect. Whoever killed me is an asshole and you're not, I get it, but if you throw away anything useful then I really DID die for nothing!"
"Where was your conscience when B'Elanna was dying on that table? Ethics, morality, conscience; funny how they all go out the airlock when we need something." I love this scene. One of the best in Star Trek...
True for 21st Century Earth.
The best part is that the Doctor still deleted him after he try to Cardiplain why he shouldn't delete him. Yeah, *I'm Cardassian and say so* didn't work on the Doc.
@@Renegade2786 But Krell made a lot of good points. Humans experimented on animals is really no different than what he did. And circumstances aside, The Doctor still used his research when he needed it then discarded it when he didn't. Krell was more right about how ethics, morality and conscience get thrown out
I much as I hate to admit it but he made a made a very convincing argument there. The Doctor threw all of that out the airlock to save one person.
@@savagebear4374 absolutely
I think the bigger problem here is that the Doc insists on punishing an innocent hologram for the sins of a person upon which he was based. It's like executing a child because his father was a murderer.
Nice analogy.
Damn, 11 year old comment, can you even remember it?
Gammaclipper sounds like North Korea
comcastjohn He/she hasn’t replied maybe gone on to better things or died
It's closer to reality than you think. Many of the benefits we have in aerospace technology was the result of the National Socialists (Google it I don't want to get in trouble) in Germany who experimented on innocent Jewish people to gain insight on aircraft pressurization, high altitude research and effects on the human body. We benefitted from it as it accelerated airplane development to where it is now. Was it worth it? Can we justify millions of innocent lives for this research? We all have to be the judge of ourselves if it was worth it or not.
Not at all. A child is an individual, forming its own personality, judgement, habits...personality in a naturally evolving manner. The hologram is a program, a series of algorithms that the computer has sampled to create a facsimile of the person. It isn't an individual unto itself but an artificial representation of what the computer interprets the data to mean. Even a clone develops unto itself, it is impossible for that clone to have the exact responses, in the exact order at the exact time the original did in forming his/her personality. Physically identical isn't mentally or intellectually identical nor does it mean identical choices for similar problems. The hologram has none of this. Even its response to the idea of being deleted is based upon the living model's desire to remain alive, it doesn't fear deletion because the program can always be recreated, recompiled so it is for all intents and purposes, it cannot end as a person would die.
It irks me that the Doctor seems to be acting like him deleting that potentially life-saving data is going to unkill those people.
Those people already died. If you refuse to let any good come of their sacrifice, then you ensure that they died for nothing.
It's human to act in anger and pride, one of the dangers of modelling AI after humans is that they inherit their flaws. Just as the other doc inherited the lack of empathy.
Exactly.
But that implies that the sacrifice was ultimately worthwhile. That the ends justify the means.
@@blackspike2710 No. That means that something shitty happened and you should make the most of it. When you're given lemons, don't throw them away. Make lemonade.
@@DblOSmith This is exactly the argument you see play out in the episode. There is no good answer to this question.
Cardassians were the best race in Star Trek, they were like the anti-Federation and had the best counter-arguments to Federation dogma.
They also ravaged an entire planet for decades, strip-mined it, tortured and enslaved its people, etc.
@@FortoFight hence why they were the Anti-Federation lol
I loved how in Mirror Universe they efficiently united multiple races into Alliance (including Bajor) to destroy turbo fascist Terran Empire.
@@FalconRS Really? Which episode was this?
@@Navar4477 All the mirror episodes of DS9, first one "Through the Looking Glass"
Many people don't like the way this episode ended, but frankly, the fact that people STILL talk about it, almost thirty years after it aired, shows how brilliant this episode was. And the fact that people disagree with the Doctor while others agree shows that here, he really was incredibly human. He tried to have a cake and eat it too, to use Krell's research and then wipe him to save his conscience, because he was uncomfortable with the implications of leaving him active. What a human thing to do.
What an incredible episode.
Yes, the writers weren't saying one view was right or wrong. They were just putting the story there and letting the viewer think about it for themselves.
You're pretty good at hitting the nail on the head, I salute you, Sir.
Plot Twist: Moriarty and the Arch rescued Krell from deletion, and banded together with Lore ;)
Thank you I hadn't thought of it that way. Interestingly though, if the holographic Doctor is at some point found to be sentient/worthy of individual rights, did he not just murder one of his own?
I think the deletion of the hologram was never about the doctor choosing to no longer use Crell's work or admitting that Crell is right. I think in that moment, The Doctor wished that he never knew about those atrocities. He knows Crell's research will be used and will help people but he doesn't want to be reminded of the atrocities committed to get that knowledge. Just like most humans, The Doctor chooses ignorance. He doesn't want Crell's face greeting him everyday as a reminder so he just pretends that Crell doesn't exist. He pretends the atrocities never happened and he focuses on helping people to the best of his ability.
I never liked the ending to this episode. The doctor claims to keep/use the research would be ethically wrong, yet he had no problems using it to save bel'anna I'd always felt the reason he deleted the program, was he knew Moset was right.
The doctor also violated Bel'anna's right to refuse medical aid. Another ethical violation. So who really has a poor understanding of ethics or morality?
Problem is, Torres refused medical aid because she would've rather died then be saved by Cardassians. Even if Moset hadn't committed any crimes, Torres STILL would've refused to be aided by the Moset hologram as she regarded ALL Cardassians as "cold blooded killers" and hated them for wiping out the Maquis and for doing bad things to the Federation colonists along the Federation/Cardassian border.
Also, Torres didn't seem to care that her death would emotionally traumatize her husband Tom Paris along with her friends and reduce Voyager's chances of returning to the Alpha Quadrant. The entire episode in fact seemed to have her acting poorly and having her acting selfishly which turned me off from her character for a while.
I also ended up blaming the alien who attached itself to Torres and caused the whole stupid mess to start with. Aliens always seem to screw everything up for the Federation ranging from the Borg to the Founders to the alien in this episode.
And consistency and integrity flaws like that are why the Federation, much as we would love it...as much as *i* would love it, will never exist.
"refuse medical aid" isn't a right. Not in all countries at least. It's debatable if it's even a right ethically.
@@davecrupel2817 I am not sure that is right. It seems to me that an ethically aspirational but flawed Federation is far more likely than one that is purely ethical one. Compromising our ideals at some point is far more likely than never compromising them.
this episode is broken, (sorry to sound like a vulcan here) but it seems illogical to delete a hologram because its based on atrocities, wouldnt you rather the work be used for something good? to make the previous deaths worth it rather than wasted lives of good people? and then theres the points that the OP already pointed out..
"Half the medical knowledge acquired on earth came through experiments on lower animals"
"But not people!"
Unit 731: "Allow me to introduce myself"
one of the very best voyager episodes. the actor, who played the cardassian holo-doctor, did a terrific job.
David Clennon. I first saw him in The Thing as Palmer. He indeed gives a superb performance here.
This is inspired by actual events. During WWII, the Nazis performed a variety of horrific "experiments" on their prisoners. Most of these were nothing more than sadistic forms of torture. One set though, which involved deliberately exposing people to subfreezing temperatures in order to induce hypothermia, and then seeing what could be done to revive them, produced actual results with applicable data. There was considerable debate within the medical community after the war as to whether these data should be used in the treatment of hypothermia. It was finally decided to use them. The technique, highly effective, widely regarded as the best, of using direct body to body contact, was discovered by the Nazis. So was the use of warming baths.
A lot of modern medical information and research either benefited from Nazi medical experiments or assisted with medical data.
Even some research on Autism which I have some known data came from Nazi research
The U.S. government did medical experiments on blacks and I believe there was until recently a statue in New York City of a surgeon who cut open female slaves while they were alive.
after WW2, the OSS let Japanese torture and medical research Unit 731 heads go without War crimes trial to gain their MASSIVE amount of medical knowledge
when the doctor says "This is the 24th century!", it gets me thinking--it's the 24th century for HUMANS, but for Cardasians it could be the 34th century or maybe even the 14th. What year it is is not universal.
+Bryan HP
On top of that, the biblical calendar should be obsolete by that time. A much better and scientifically relevant one would be the Holocene Calendar (starts at the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution). It's a simple conversion. Just add 10,000. So this current year is 12016 H.E. (Holocene Era or Human Era).
Of course, a universal calendar in Star Trek would have to be a galactic calendar.
+Bryan HP
I guess the universal translator also converts units.
The future ain't what it used to be.
@@JanetStarChild The biblical calender has been shown by scholars even today to be the best one we have on record and the best we could even come up with in this day and age. So...
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
How is it "the best"? It certainly is not better than the Holocene calendar.
And, in fact, the only difference between the two is when their year 0 begins.
The Holocene calendar begins at the start of the Neolithic revolution that began the era of modern humans, whereas the Gregorian calendar begins at the supposed birth date of a literature character whom may or may not have existed. That's like having a calendar based on the birth of Robin Hood.
It's the beauty of Star trek to put you in the conundrum and ask the viewer how do you get out.
"It's convenient to draw a line between higher and lower species, isn't it."
I would have kept his program.
Letting people die just to be better than someone else, is *extraordinarily* pompous.
Absolutely agreed! I really didn't like a lot of the characters attitude in that episode... I mean first of all that hologram isn't to blame for anything, he didn't perform these experiments. Secondly what's been done can't be changed and not using helpful medical techniques doesn't help the people who died or their families.
In my opinion the more important ethical question would have been whether they should treat B'Elanna against her wishes... I mean her reasons for refusing treatment were based a lot on her abhorrence of the Cardassians, so imo the important question would've been "should they respect that even if it means that she'll die?"
And disrespectful to the lives lost to his experimentation
I agree. The EMH should've calculated better than this.
He should've weighed 'ethics' vs. risks.
The way I see it, those ppl did not die in vain. Medical science and research advanced because of it.
If 100 ppl died do to science, while the research from it continually save lives infinitely, into the future unendingly saving lives, this number is never going to stop, while that 100 ppl that died, is still 100 ppl.
@@alexthorsman3186 damage is done. We can either use what was done for good or destroy it for hubris. If I was experimented on and killed, I think I'd want that research used for good instead of just destroyed, b/c then I died for nothing.
@@Tuffsmoygles ..... Uh..... So do I.....? Not sure you read my comment correctly.
One point I wish they tackled in this episode is one they got very close to when Moset brings up experiments on "lower animals". Cardassians (in general) consider Bajorans to BE "lower animals".
From Moset's point of view he wasn't conducting his experiments on people, but on what are basically very clever apes.
I think it would have been good to have him get the Doctor to admit that sometimes experimenting on lower life forms is STILL acceptable, and then throw in his face that their major disagreement is whether a Bajoran is their equal.
Show us Moset not just as a man who had done monstrous things, but as the product of a society that had done monstrous things.
I'm guessing they didn't want to muddy the topic of medical experimentation, with racism. One topic at a time.
I think the greatest vice that this episode taught Trek fans is that sometimes you have to put on the mask of hypocrisy in order to solve problems or live with yourself. The Doctor had a shaky choice to make; he violated B'Elanna's wishes to use Moset's horribly induced expertise but at the same time she was healed. Sometimes you have to get dirty to get clean. But respect to the Doctor for refusing to kill Tuvix; I will never forget that. He could have done the procedure himself without Moset because he gained the knowledge but that knowledge had dark roots to it. Hypocrisy dances a tango with progress sometimes.
This episode was indeed dark and controversial not to mention raised uncomfortable questions about morality. At the time, I cursed the alien to attached itself to Torres for creating the whole stupid mess.
Anyhow, sometimes you have to be a hypocrite and suspend your morals for the greater good like Sisko did in Season 6 when he was an accomplice to Garak's deeds to get the Romulans to join the war effort against the Dominion. The Doctor just did the same thing as Voyager and its crew needed Torres for various reasons but Torres allowed her hatred for the Cardassians affect her judgement and that was BEFORE Moset's crimes were revealed. Therefore, someone else needed to make the choice for her.
Is it really a vice? It showed, in best Maqui-DS9 style, how simplistic idealism and self-righteousness can lead to hyprocrisy. As Spock said there's difference between acceptance and understanding.
I dun see it as Hypocrisy to use the science some evil monster developed... however, to go down on that evil monster's level and do equally horrid actions to try and progress science is where the line should be drawn.
Knowledge itself is neither good nor evil - it merely 'is'. It's how you use it that makes the difference.
Thing is when this happens, this research is never thrown away, we use it even though we don't like it
it's pointless spite the help of a verified improvement to deny any (likely dead or arrested) dues to a killer.
it would only lead to other people trying to replicate some of the work (in hopefully less dubious ways) to verify whispered of research anyways.
what's worse, to not save a life knowing that you could or to use the work of someone who used objectionable methods to get the information?
Because if it is, 2 things are lost: The results And the people who died for them
Stupid comment.
The major problem i have with this episode, is that not only did those people suffer and die, but their legacy was pissed on by deleting that research. Congrats they now suffered and died for nothing. What kinda logic is that?
My point exactly. It just lessened the value of lives lost by burying them again. Instead of acknowledging their loss and chugging forward, the episode argues that burying the past and its fruits because it’s uncomfortable now is an ideal solution
To benefit from unacceptable practices is to perpetuate unacceptable practices. Stopping one stops the other. You can't go half measure. The original victims died for a more just future. The justice saves many lives of future victims.
Man I bet they are so pissed about the research that treated them like lab rats got deleted.
@@fungames24 so you refuse to get treatment for frostbite right? you'll refuse to ever go to to space or look at any research developed by NASA right? how about those breast cancer awareness ads that encourage self checks? you still insist on living in homes full as absetos right? and that's all just the Nazis. shall we discuss some more horrible ways that medical and other sciences have been advanced that you are benefiting from while sitting on your little high horse?
Dude, Ensign Tabor was there, he's one of the survivors, and the guy's pretty adamant about how his community's memory should be honored
This is a brilliant clip but, I believe, flawed. The knowledge is there. It came about through horrific means and horrific deeds and they should not be celebrated, indeed, they should be punished. But refusing to use it because we have moral issues with how it came about is irresponsible and, frankly, the doctor involved comes off as hypocritical.
Agreed. What's done is done, let's make the best out of it.
It reminds me about when I learned of those illegal medical experiments that were performed by Nazi's on the Jewish. There was many inhumane practices done, but it also solved many medical issues. The Cardassians doing a similar act on the Bajorans is probably meant to reference the Nazi's.
Wouldn't be the first time
And why not let some small good come out of what they did?
The real issue I can somewhat give merit to on not using research gained through inhuman practices such as these is that if the research is used in the end regardless, it's in a way condoning the behavior because while we may punish the individual responsible, it shows that their work will live on and we would have to give recognition to the person who invented it for the sake of historical record.
I still lean on the side of if the information is there and it can be useful, to use it unless someone wishes to refuse the treatment because of how it came into existence.
"But NOT people!" The doctor says this, despite the fact that a ton of medical knowledge was salvaged from the Nazis via their experiments in the camps. Things like the various stages of frostbite, the effects of varying degrees of physical trauma to the body, effects of extreme low pressures on humans, and the effects of varying dosages of multiple drugs on people.
B-b-but Human good! Spoon man bad spoon man bad!
@@cleanerben9636 NASA used some results of Mengele's experiments in its space program till someone discovered origin of it (aka Auschwitz) and forced NASA's execs to put them aside...
Let's not forget as well who in the past a "father" of US space program was... aka creator of the V 1 and V 2 rockets Wernher von Braun... "rescued" by US troops at the end of the war and repatriated to USA... instead landing at the Nuremberg's bench alongside of Goering, Dönitz and other third reich leaders...
Even the Japanese during WW2 did nasty experiment on Chinese and allies troops as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nazi_Doctors#:~:text=The%20Nazi%20Doctors%3A%20Medical%20Killing,in%20carrying%20out%20a%20genocide.
I think what the Japanese did with Unit 731 was far worse than anything the Nazi's did, and that's saying a lot.
The doctor was wrong here. The research was already done.
Agreed. Knowledge is knowledge. We had to grit our teeth and use the portions of research Nazi and Japanese medical science granted us out of the atrocities they committed whenever it is beneficial, and many Chinese and Russian/Soviet breakthroughs, I'm sure, came from doctors with blood on their hands -- we still use that knowledge, because it can save lives.
We also use that knowledge because if we had thrown away that information, it would have been throwing away the lives and sacrifices of those people. At least by using the info, their lives have meaning beyond the statistics of victims.
I don't agree. I think that ethics go above and beyond "what's already done" and for the point. That we can't condone this because that makes it ok in the future
Then what about the ethical issue of not saving someone you could have because the information was gained through unethical means? That those experiments were done is a ghastly, horrible thing, but throwing away the knowledge won't bring the victims back. All it does is make their suffering thoroughly, legitimately pointless.
I agree that ethics go above and beyond "what's already done." But when you have a chance to squeeze a little good out of an evil that you can no longer undo, you should take it.
Oh indeed it was wrong for the individual to conduct those experiments, AND we should make an example of this by disgracing the individual as a monster
but we should not throw away the key knowledge gained from it
i mean the knowledge was gained to combat a problem
no matter how cruel it would be would anyone throwaway the cure for cancer?
BUT we should NEVER make it OKAY for these kinds of practices to EVER be replicated
If the doctor had any sense, knowing that there was a strong anti Cardassian sentiment among some of the crew, he should have changed Moset's physical parameters and kept his mouth shut....
My thought, too, even before I began scanning the comments. In any case, he could put it on the logical shelf, as was done with Dr. Moriarty by Picard.
Well this a the doctor were talking about here who got drunk in 7 of 9s body. He doesn't have much sense outside a bio bed.
And again, we never hear a word of it after this episode. Everything goes back to normal. LoL
My thought of a compromise on this:
Keep the research, but wipe the scientist’s name from it. Scrub him entirely. Condemn the actions, of course, make no secret of what was done, but let the man himself be forgotten; let his life amount to nothing, not even infamy.
I think that might be the harshest possible revenge on someone like that.
Wouldn't that happen even if his name was kept? Secrecy of the name would just make it available to pin the atrocities onto someone else eventually. As demining as it is to have your name stripped from your work, such censorship also takes the grief off of the victims who are the whole point of the censorship. Any path of censorship in this instance is fruitless.
That would be impossible since they can't erase every data file of his work from every federation computer, let alone every other scientific database including the cardasian
To have knowledge means it will be used...for good or ill. Knowledge that comes from past events can't be unlearned nor should your back be turned on it. What was done was done and can't be undone. The best we can do is use the knowledge gained for the betterment of human kind
it can be argued that by using this knowledge you are incentivizing someone else to do it again
@@guguigugu Is that really true? If some terrible people are willing to use the research as an excuse to do more experiments, it's highly unlikely they wouldn't do the experiments anyway if the knowledge was destroyed. If anything, the loss of such knowledge would possibly motivate some people to redo it.
I'm so glad to see so many people here that feel the same way about this episode as I do.
As egregious as those experiments were, to not use the information obtained, would mean that evil has won, and these poor people would have suffered and died for NOTHING. Use the knowledge! Defy the evil and use it to perform some good. Don't let evil win!
The german title for this episode was "Inhumane Praktiken". Pretty spot on.
That was such a stupid decision. Delete valuable medical resources because we feel bad about them.
Its about principal. What good is an advancement if we did not achieve it in good standing.
@@Sirax123 but the advancements are already there, they cant change the past but they could save a life then. Those people's deaths were horrible and not worth it. But they cant change that. isn't it better to use the research gained to save at least one life than to throw it all away and make their deaths even more worthless?
@@Sirax123 I owe knowledge of my diagnosis to a nazi, should I refuse to act upon it because a piece of shit did the research?
@@martingoldfire You should try to read on what documents NASA based her Moon Landing program (and I'm not talking about hiring a nazi rocket specialist and designer of V2 rockets Verner von Braun in the first place)... and trust me, you would be very surprised...
@@asheer9114 By Odins beard, what does the moon landing have to do with this?
Voyager: "Let's murder Tuvix to bring back two of our crew"!
Also Voyager: * This *
If I recall, that one was solely Janeway's decision. In fact the Doctor refused to carry out the procedure. Janeway had to do it herself.
@Flekk Bone Gnawer They were already dead, bringing them back to life was a mad science experiment that killed Tuvix.
@@djpob I guess Kirk's transporter twin was also murder, granted the circumstances were different, but they took two living people and made them one. The fact neither could survive on their own is a technicality...
And this is what I love about the Tuvix story. They didn't give Janeway a convenient out by saying his life span was cut short, or he was falling apart from Technobabble due to the transporter. She had to choose between having two crewmen or one. Wrestling with a decision like that often comes down to pro's vs cons, and on a ship where they have no new officers transferring aboard, recovering Tuvok and Neelix was the best decision for the good of the ship. It might not have been a ship wide life or death event, but given the distance Voyager had to cover it was the most long serving.
This show definitely suffered from the reset button
They didn't murder Tuvix, they restored him to how he was supposed to be. Let's face it, Tuvix was doomed to a fate of conflicting personalities: Neelix's easy going personality would be conflicted with Tuvok's stoic and logical personality. Neelix still loved Kes, but Tuvok still loved his own wife and would force Neelix to break off his relationship with Kes. What Janeway did was choose the most humane outcome possible that would benefit all parties involved
THe deed was done, let's not waste their suffering and use it for good... so that they did't die in vain, in real life and ficiton
As the people who conducted the Stamford Prison Experiment put it, (paraphrased) We can never undo what was done, but we can try to use what we've learned to help people.
Of course, they had the advantage of not having inflicted harm intentionally, but rather by mistake.
The problem is not using it, its the precedent. If scientists know their rereach will be used, they may do it out of desperation or because they simply are cold fucks. If they know everything they do will be deleted if non etchical methods was used, it will reduce the chance they will do it.
Øystein A. Most of the huamn anaotmy science breakthrus came thru the nazi encampents. Japanese death camps. Usa mental clincs etc. People treated badly. It is sad. And never again should something like thath happen. But to let human suffering for nothing is even wrose. Their suffering was wrong. But atleast gove tohers hope and happines thru their suffering.
If they were truly desperate or truly cold, they wouldnt care about a precedent
The fact that this is even a question is insane to me...
To be fair if you get rid of the program, then those he did torture for research would die in vain when the research could be used to save many more.
Cardassian Mengele
Never throw away knowledge.
You... waste their sacrifice, voluntary or not.
Would you rather have the atrocities AND the disease?
all those thousands of people he killed, died in vain and went to waste because the doctor want to soothe his conscience
"it's convenient to draw a line between higher and lower species, isn't it?" What makes that line so terrifying is that he isn't wrong. For all our talk in the modern world about animal cruelty and testing, we're as willing to sacrifice a lamb to the altar of an unseen force as long as it reassures our fragile egos of the value of our otherwise insignificant affronts. Science likes to pay lips service to the sensitive masses, but it will always confess behind closed doors to slaughtering mice in a maze to prove a point, ethics be damned. The only difference between Human's and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we managed to figure out how to craft a gun first.
The personality of Moset, have parts of both Dukat and Garak as well as his own. A great character in an otherwise mediocre episode. At times, Moset behaves with the arrogance attributed to most Cardassians (Dukat especially), while other times refer to the "greater good" and doing bad things for the right reason (much like Garak did in the episode, In the Pale Moonlight).
The Moset hologram seems to me a decent being who sincerely wanted to help others but was willing to do bad things for the greater good. It's too bad he was deleted, I would've liked to have seen more of him in action but the Maquis on the ship wouldn't have reacted well to his presence which likely factored into the Doctor's decision to delete him as he didn't want there to be a rift between the Maquis and the Starfleet Officers on the ship.
He could have just change Moset's default shape to human.
The damage was done and the Maquis on Voyager would still regard him as a Cardassian since his programming was based on the research and personality template of a Cardassian. While some people know that not all Cardassians are evil, the Maquis on Voyager don't believe that or at least have a lot of bad memories about them doing bad things to people they care about and have great difficulty letting go of the past especially since their Maquis comrades were wiped out by them and the Dominion.
Bottom line is that the Moset hologram was tearing the social fabric of Voyager's crew apart with his presence and simply giving him a Human form wouldn't have changed anything. It's annoying that all this happened because they tried to help out an alien in need and he/she thanked them by nearly killing Torres, exposing her darker more spiteful half, threatening her marriage with Paris /who supported using Moset's research which likely angered Torres and put their marriage on the rocks temporarily/ and by tearing apart the social fabric of Voyager's crew. Makes me wonder if the Terra Prime movement from "Enterprise" was actually right about SOME aliens.......
I would love if had they kept the Moset hologram as a recurring character to act as a foil to the Doctor. He's my favorite one-shot Star Trek character.
@@girlgarde Honestly, sometimes, the maquis needed to shut the hell up and listen to reason. that was always one of their biggest problems and ultimately why they were defeated.
The real danger in denying and not facing history, even atrocities is that we loose understanding of them and won’t know them as clearly when we see them.
the good doctor must also realize that most of his remedial knowledge of certain medical treatments were also garnered the same way operation paperclip being the best example of the use of medical as well as technological knowledge gained via the nazi's which helped propel the u.s.a. forward knowledge which later is used to save lives there is an inherent flaw in his logic
I did not like how this episode ended and quite frankly who ever wrote this episode should have been given a boot up the arse and made to sit a remedial history course. Also the Doctor comes across as self-righteous and sanctimonious, he should also study the history of medicine.
Seems to me like the information should be used if it can help, regardless of how it was obtained.
Isn't it a better memorial to those abused to take the knowledge gained from their suffering to HELP others?
This is probably one of those debates that will forever have opposing sides to it.
@@kevinphoenix2007 Sure, but at the end of the day the results are what matters. If one side's argument, if accepted, would result in worse results (i.e the loss of valuable medical information), then it isn't even worth having the argument to begin with.
This argument can be summed up another way "if it wasn't me, it would be someone else."
Yeah you would not be thinking that while on the butcher block.
Stop lying.
I love startrek as it inspires conversations like all the ones here. Its fantastic.
not anymore, it just inspires disgust and discussions on how much its being perverted to push a self destructive agenda.
@@Shiirow wow you have very strong feelings about the new version of startrek lower decks. Personally I like it.
What more disgusting way to disrespect the memory of those who suffered and died in pursuit of knowledge? We can both utilize such knowledge and fully admit the methods of obtaining it were wrong. But the past cannot be changed, so to destroy or ignore such knowledge is to condemn such deaths as totally meaningless.
Use the knowledge and remember the price that was paid for it, so that such things don't happen in the future.
this basically the computer arguing with itself.
I think u folks who are hating on this episode is missing the point of it: not everyone would find it ethically appropriate to derive knowledge from experimenting on people or other living organisms, and Star Trek is one of the only shows on TV where they even bother to ask morality questions like this. Enjoy the episode for what it's worth, it's defn better than all the reality show garbage that most networks are pumping out these days.
I hate the episode, not because they brought it up. But because they concluded it! It's not that easy, "yes or now", "right or wrong". It would have been better if the question wasn't wasn't answered as decisively as it was. Just leave it open..
Ever hear of a Doctor, by the name of Mangala? ( spelling is probably off) this man, is the father of modern medicine. With out him, we wouldn't be as advanced as we are. Here's your moral issue, He was a Nazi doctor, and he figured this stuff out, by experimenting on Jews. Do you want to go to the doctor again, because 90% of what he knows, is from that man.
@@omegastar2012 Mengele is not the father of modern medicine and the idea that 90% of what your doctor knows came from him is laughable fiction. It's obvious that you have read nothing about his sadistic trials wrapped up as medical experiments and that you're simply repeating some bullshit that you found convenient to believe.
@@omegastar2012 Josef Mengele is most certainly not the father of modern medicine. I don't know where the hell you got that idea from. The records of his experiments that weren't destroyed were considered junk science, mostly designed to satisfy his own morbid curiosity with Eugenics. Dude was a quack. Some Nazi experimentation saw its use in later research, but it was extremely limited, and not spearheaded by Mengele. And the foundation of modern medicine? Absolutely not.
@@fransurbo Eh, I'd say it's a good end because it concludes with the Doctor's choice, not with a "this is the only way" statement. It's not like a narration for the Twilight Zone telling us the moral.
It is a very complex and nuanced ethical issue. With both sides of the argument having merit and flaws.
Let us see JJ verse take on topics like this in his version of trek. These are what I find fascinating about star trek all of the human morals and dilemmas and quandaries that it brings.
Yes, it's also the reason why the movies bombed at the box office for years. Fact is, it wasn't working, and that's the reason we had no new Trek after Nemesis in 2002 and Enterprise in 2005.
The Abrams take would be: "Rules are for other people!"
Human morals vs non human species morals. You should see what the Klingons have done to get their medical and biomechanical knowledge.
Into Darkness had the dilema of the Federation turning into a military and the morality of firing at the Klingons. Ploblem is.....those topics went nowhere as after they arrived at Kronos, they were dropped completely.
So close
kuribo1 will proably fire some phasers that makes it all right in the abrhamsverse
Voyager touched on the subject of the luxury of morality. The Vidiians, the Borg, Equinox, all dispensed with it when their very existence was threatened. Morality can be an important distinction between the civilised and the barbaric, but where does one draw the line? And is it necessary to suspend when everything we hold dear is threatened?
So let’s make sure those people died for nothing by throwing away any knowledge gained from their deaths. That’ll show that computer program based on a possibly evil doctor!
No price is too high if it's already been paid. But sure, let's waste all those suffering and deaths now and throw away the data.
Have to really wonder about this episode because the Doctor, while wrong, claims that his database was created using only animals, and yet, in the episode "Scientific Method', doesn't Janeway condemn research on animals because she and her crew had no voice in the experiments the aliens were doing to them? Another contradiction in the vaunted StarFleet morality.
Most of Gynecology was written after experimenting on Enslaved Africans.
"Are we really so different?"
Yes.
Because one made a choice while the other made a different choice. No matter how simular we may be, it's ultimately choices that determine who we are. The Doctor chose to believe that ultimately Krell's research wasn't worth it, even if it could save lives because he thought about all the lives Krell took in order to get that knowledge.
After all we've heard this before: "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few or the one" but as our good friend Kirk showed sometimes "The needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many."
Krell choose the many, the Doctor is choosing the few/one. He'll find his own way to save lives without using memory the lives of all those Krell killed.
The contradictions that people are pointing out about the Doc, Janeway, and crew exist because people are human or human-like (even the Doc is essentially human, since his personality is based on his creator). I think all the inconsistencies in the show in that regard are there on purpose, and they give the crew a very human quality - For better or worse. I suspect things would have operated differently on a ship of mostly Vulcan influence.
If I had been a victim of such barbarism at the hands of a vicious doctor - I could live with the fact that at least SOME good may have come from my death. I would rather that, than nothing at all!
I tell ya, if I was tortured to death, but, through my tortured agonizing death, came a result that could save hundreds.. thousands.. millions of others...
No one better throw that info away. If haunting it possible after death, I'd haunt the hell out of whatever made all that suffering, leading to my death, meaningless.
I agree.
Evil shall be good to have been, and yet remain evil.
It reminds me of a scene from the anime Angel Beats where an accident happened and several people were trapped. At some point, they all started becoming convinced they were going to die before help arrived.
.
One of the characters decided to write on his ID that he'd like to be an organ donor and convinced others to do the same.
No one survived, but their deaths saved the lives of others.
.
Now, the connection may not be obvious because one was the result of an accident and the other the result of experiments, but in both cases, the benefit to others comes from people who were forced into a situation where suffering and death were the ultimate outcome.
@@InfernosReaper indeed, thank you
Yeah in the end, I don't think you'd give a damn. You'd be tortured and dying. And odds are if your death would mirror an example you may of heard from some dumb textbook (which it was because I am sure you've never known true suffering) you wouldn't know why you were being subjected to experiments, nor would you probably even realize that you were.
You wouldn't know one way or the other.
Stop acting like you would.
The doctor was right.
So was that young crewman.
Stop with the sanctimony.
It's so... American.
You're just being morally obtuse and sanctimonious.
Extremely good episode! Both the Doctor and Krell make valid arguments. I come down to the Doctor’s side. The knowledge gained by Krell’s “experiments” came at too high a cost. Bel’Anna was saved, but would she feel comfortable with how her life was saved? The viewer has to wrestle with their own conscience on these questions.
I love Star Trek, but this is another example of Star Trek pushing their version of morality on everyone else
Tf you mean, they made great points for two opposite views
Janeway murders Tuvix: "Ohmygawd! I can't believe she would murder someone!"
The Doctor murders Krell: "Yeah, he had it coming."
For a moment I thought he was going to say " computer: delete both the medical consultant and myself". That would have been an ethically consistent and unexpected ending....
And a very stupid thing to do and a very unsatisfying end to a beloved character. Think, mister four years ago.
@@MoreLikeMagicMan , I think you've just come up with one of the best usernames ever.
Best wishes, mister four years late!
Everyone seems to be forgetting an important detail. Voyager already has a resident exobiologist: Samantha Wildman. Why is it necessary to create a computer-generated holographic representation of an exobiologist to consult on the case when they already have one on board? Is there something inherently wrong with using her in a role relevant to her expertise instead of just "Mom"?
And why couldnt the doctor just download the knowledge the program has.
My most major objection to the doctor's reasoning is this. His program is basically Voyager's entomological (relating to the study of insects) database dumped into an interactive program to consult the Doctor, so if any actual research of this man exists its in the personality shell that they chose... and this is one aspect of surely a lot of what this man did... so couldn't they delete just the questionable content? Couldn't they just delete the personality shell and load a new one? But no... they have to delete it ALL. Thats insane and doesn't make any sense. That means if the Doctor chose the Microsoft Paperclip as the personality shell none of this would of happened... at all... so there is the whole the Doctor brought this guy into being and then took him out to satisfy a problem that the Doctor created! I mean that would be like creating a hologram of Hitler to brutally abuse till you get bored then delete him... thats not right! Thats not ethical. Thats messed up!
You are asking WAY too much of Voyager writing.
This is the kind of stories I want from Star Trek, not brainless, heartless, gun blazing special effects.
that starship has sailed i guess...
This story was brainless
Excellent episode -- there might not be a 'right' answer.
A lot of today's medical knowledge came from experiments on people conducted by the Germans and Japanese in world war 2.
America conducted medical experiments on Black people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
They brag about how many lives American doctors saved without ever mentioning how many Black people were killed or how many were permanently crippled because of the medical experiments.
Throw away all medical research with unethical subject matter........there'd be no medical science.
An EHM that is a Cardassian Dr Mengele.
This was the dilemma faced by the Europe in the aftermath of WW2. The Nazis made mountains of scientific discovery on human anatomy and physiology .... at the cost of attempted genocide. So which better honors the dead? Make use of the knowledge to save lives? Or destroy the knowledge?
Man I still remember this episode. One of the most thought-provoking episodes of television.
Not really;
Forceful experimentation on anyone is wrong, human or animal, but to dismiss results and treatments that were gathered unethically is equally wrong. The whole field of medicine is based and developed on experimentation, today pharmaceuticals experiment on animals and humans, in case of humans not forcefully but voluntary, yet in the end still experimentation at the core. Results are results, the acts are the acts. You can condemn the acts and
perpetrators, but not discard the end results and ban their usage to help other humans or even animals as unethical.
@@kurosumomo don't you think this attitude will just encourage future mad scientist mfs to cut open 100s for finding some cure or just to make some notable discovery?
It is thought provoking epi ~
@@arav13 bad and evil people will always exist.. thats why we have police and military.. its illegal to kill and steal, yet we still have murder, robbery and homicide. Right and wrong is also subjective, it depends on someones perspective and culture. Rules were put not only for you but for others as well so if theres no definitive solution to a delima you vote with your peers.
It's basically a computer program arguing with a computer program. If this knowledge was so forbidden why did Staefleet include it in their database to start with?
Inhuman practices?
Those inhuman practices helped saved more lives than you can count.
And what right do you (a computer program) have to judge anyone?
You weren't there.
This is a weak “philosophical” argument. So much of humanity today is built on an ugly past. The wealth of the United States is built on human slavery and the murder and forced relocation of the native population that were at a technological disadvantage. Am I about to move to Africa because I have some ancestry there? No, I will continue doing my best to contribute to what we are today, a still growing and imperfect society. This correlates to how history has been sanitized to paint the founders and great figures as pure. Nobody is, but that does not take from their achievements. A lot of the Trek of the TNG era shows, leaned a little bit too lofty of the self-righteousness to be honest. DS9 was more “real” post Dominion Threat. TNG and Voyager at times did a bad job IMO of balancing ethics with reality. Fact is the information you have is what you have, no matter the means. If it can save life, it’s always wrong to dismiss it. Just don’t commit those atrocities again. A better ethical argument is not to continue the atrocities but find a better way.
Lol... the whole premise is nonsense. The doctor is a hypocrite.
For example he uses Borg processes to heal his creator
He did not the the hypocritical oath for nothing 😆
Just look at his Captain, the shining example of utter hypocrisy
The crewman was out of line.
The medical consultant hologram did not commit any crimes.
The research had already occurred and could not be undone. I believe this data had already been made widely available. Deleting the hologram accomplished nothing
This was a good episode but it was on the wrong show. The Doctor deleting the data is meaningless. We know from DS9 the Federation has so many ships - they would all have this data.
When Voyager gets in contact with the Federation again, they probably brought this up. Whether or not the federation decided to delete the knowledge from all Starfleet ships would be up to them I guess.
Easy one for me. Redouble commitment to ethics and making sure that wherever possible you choose the most humane and least harmful options while acknowledging the horrific research and tragedies it caused *did* happen, and pledge to get the most good and use you possibly can out of the research. There is no sense in shying away from what already happened, it cannot be changed, it is only commitments to do better and not repeat mistakes of the past that matter. I feel the best way you can honour the sacrifices of the people who were victims in the research is to do the most possible good with the information that did end up coming out of it.
The fuck?! If I'd been tortured to death at the hands of some evil genius doctor, I'd at least want what they learned from my suffering to be used to help innocent people one day! In a way, the victims live on in the research. No, they shouldn't have died, but at least since they did, their deaths had SOME purpose and meaning. Destroying knowledge acquired this way means they died, basically, for sport.
It doesn't even matter.
The victims are dead and gone. No course of action, no choice made, could possibly affect them anymore.
It's all about the lives and suffering of those in the now. Innocents whose lives are in danger, or who suffer chronic pains and illnesses. Innocents who need help.
Refusing to help them because the needed tools have been gained by unethical means, is vile and disgusting. I can't stand such moral cowardice.
The moral cowardice is courting evil by acknowledging that its very existence has a use.
+Ragitsu
Hence why it enrages me.
Arguably, it's not even just _courting_ evil - it _is_ evil.
The problem with validating past unethical/immoral means of gathering medical knowledge lies in the validation. This opens up the potential for *future* violations of ethics and morals. After all, you've already made the case that an act of evil is justified if "good" comes of it. Who's to say the rules shouldn't be bent or broken if someone with noble intentions feel it is their right to take a step further?
You spoke of moral cowardice. Yet it seems you meant the exact opposite of what you said.
Moral cowardice means refusing to do the right thing for fear of doing the wrong thing. Letting the fear of doing "evil" stop you from doing good.
Letting an entire planet's population die in a natural disaster, because you're so fucking scared of "contaminating" their culture that you won't even dare to go near them.
_That_ is moral cowardice. That is what Trek argues in favor of. There are episodes about their holy Prime Directive, in which they refuse to help a dying populace because they don't have warp travel yet.
Do not use a term you have no fucking understanding of.
Now to address your actual point.
No one is validating them in their unethical efforts, no one is encouraging them do the same again. I'm not arguing in favor of letting them go unpunished for their transgressions. If scientists are found using unethical methods, their funding is pulled and they are tried in court. Punished for what they've done.
How is this encouragement? Who called the people who did bad things to innocents in the name of "science" noble? No one. You are putting words into our mouths.
You disgust me.
Delete the program and all of the related files, so now, the knowledge is lost, and all of those people suffered and died for absolutely nothing. One of the dumbest things Voyager ever did.
"I used what resources I had." Where was your conscience when Belona was dying?
So using the information the cardassian collected against sapient rights, is bothering you because it’s being used (in a positive manner)? Yeah sure I mean those people were tortured and shit, might as well not let it all be in vain and actually use the information rather than just essentially laying down and dying
I think one of the greatest things about Star Trek is that sometimes the federation got things wrong. They tried to do the best they could, dealing with the ethical considerations that came with it. Warp drive was developed because of the development of weapons technology, how do you think phasers and shields were developed they didn't come around by accident. I don't think this episode is dumb because the decision that was made by the doctor was wrong, I actually think it's kind of brilliant because the decision is so obviously wrong.
It’s an unwinnable ethical conundrum.
Sure it is. You condemn the actions but don't let the suffering be in vain.
To do otherwise would be like someone drinking themselves into poverty and eventually death because someone died saving their life.
It's a complete waste of the 2nd chance.
you know it's good writing when you can't pick an argument to side with.
But it's not good writing when the writers try to force down the "right" opinion on the viewer when you're trying to make them think.
@@frostmagemarii there is a choice to make on the characters path. That we as viewers can agree or not is the very definition of good writting
They made us care! That is great writing.
I wish this episode had done a little more to address the fact that the holographic version of him was based on the federation records of the original, which were incomplete and didn't list his crimes. When he initially denies any wrongdoing it's because he genuinely has no knowledge of it. He's an approximation of a version of Crell Moset who was innocent, so whatever the real Moset did, how can the hologram possibly be held responsible?
"I didn't come hear to debate the issue with your krell."
No you just came here to flaunt your moral superiority. The insipid Utopian idealism of Star Trek is the primary reason why I can't find it within myself to watch a whole series of it.
Deep Space 9 is the only one worth watching through.
The EMH's positions are completely absurd.
Easily the dumbest episode of Star Trek. 45 minutes of empty moralizing over a non-issue.
There was a TNG episode dedicated to medical ethics already.
I would claim a lot of the original episodes when viewed now is dumber. To me they are pain to watch. At least in this one I got to see Picardo act.
not really. this same issue came up after WWII over whether data gathered from nazi experiments should be used or not
Wouter that's exactly it. The experients done to create the vbomb and the data collected was used by USA to do the space program. Those who cannot grasp this and call it a non issue are not very deep thinkers
Did you watch NextGen?
I don’t understand. Mocet did those things, not hologram Mocet. Why did they program those evil things into the hologram when the real guy was never actually proven in a court of law to have done those things?
I love these "The ends justifies the means" people .... oddly enough , they can never answer the question , " What if 'the ends" is never reached ?" In this case , the cardassian doctor is claiming his "research" justified because he found a cure. What if he never found a cure ? Would his research still be justified ? That is a valid result and just as possible a finding a cure. As far as using the results of said research "after the fact" .... that gets dicey but depending on the topic or application but I don't have a issue with it. Knowledge already "known" is one thing , research is another.
>What if "the ends" is never reached.
Then the means are not justified.
It depends, was he on the right track? Did his research help ultimately find the correct cure? Is the condition itself worse than the doctor's own efforts to cure it? These facts might throw even a failed effort to cure the disease through barbaric practices into a gray area.
Some diseases really are bad enough that the treatment should be pursued even at a high moral cost.
Every time someone consider this, try to think about this: I don't know if you have found love, or if you are married or if you have children, but if you have, imagine that THEY are the ones that are going to suffer a horrible, barbaric death with days of suffering in the hands of a pshycopath. And then, once that is done, once they are dead and you had to watch they die in desperation, terror and pain, once their souls are not going ot find rest because their mutilated bodies are throw like garbage into some unknow dump, think if the consolation about curing other people you will never know (probably the fellow country man of that doctor, and not your people) is enough.
If the answer is yes, if you can let your loved ones be tortured in horrific experiments for the sake of the common good, then proceed. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. It's very easy to sacrifice people you don't know. The only acceptable sacrifice is the one you are able to suffer. If you can't sacrifice what you are demanding others to sacrifice, then your whole point is empty, and your morals, totally wrong. It's very easy justify the killing over unknown ID numbers.
if the end is never reached, then that means the means of which someone tried to reach the end cannot be justified. if all he had was incomplete data he cannot justify the means nor can the claim work because without an end, the means cannot be justified even if they were just means.
The means are horrible, and should not of been done, but in this case they were, not saving lives in the future is not testament to better means just anger. You can't undo the harm, just do the most good after the fact that you can.
This episode is rubbish.
USA has sent a man to the Moon - a great achievement, and Wernher von Braun had nothing to do with it.
This was a super power episode, conflicts like these are the essence of Star Trek.
By erasing his research, those people will have truly died for nothing. You disgrace their memory by forgetting what they died for.
"Hey, I cured cancer!"
"Thank god, millions of people will be saved. How did you do it?"
"It involved raping a puppy."
"Welp, I guess we just have to let those people die now. It's the ethical choice."
"as long as we're willing to benefit from his research, we're no better than he is" So benefiting from research that was done while committing mass murder is no different than committing mass murder? That doesn't make much sense.
Its like claiming everyone who went to the moon is as guilty as Nazis, because their rocket was designed by Wernher Von Braun. Absolutely absurd if you ask me
A waste and an insult to those lives lost.
And how many MORE lives would be lost if he Hadn't done what he did - where's the ethics of that?
thedavecorp By using the knowledge obtained, are you not condoning the process through which it was obtained? And by using, are you not making it that much easier to rationalize the next time? If it's okay this time, then it's okay every time.
It's a tough question. Imagine a building full of people is on fire. If you have the option between saving people the conventional firefighting way that you know will inevitably resulting some of the people dying. By some god magical power or Q you can put out the fire by killing one person that's standing right next to you now. What would you choose?
+Christus
So, you're saying that we should throw away the results of the "Little Albert" experiment which led to breakthroughs in psychology (specifically work in behavior and phobias).
Perhaps we should abandon all research that has stemmed from the use of HeLa cells because they while a woman was receiving radioactive treatment for her cancer, her surgeons removed healthy and cancerous sections of her cervix without telling her; even though they were crucial in developing the polio vaccine and are used today in research on AIDS, cancer, and drug testing?
What about Tretinoin? It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, and it’s used to treat acute promyelocytic leukemia, but it was garnered through the Holmesburg Prison Trials and was discovered by Dr. Albert M. Kligman, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, after years of testing substances on the backs of prisoners at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia as early as 1951.
What about the behavioral breakthroughs that came from the The Milgram Experiments?
It's easy to condemn the things of the past, but unfortunately, much of the medical comforts we have now come from people who behaved unethically by our standards today (sometimes even by standards of their time). If you want to throw away the research because of the processes used, rather than try to put in place more stringent rules to lessen future harm.. then it's people like you that would have the blood of future individuals on your hands, and all for the sake of your feelings.
This has a parallel to a historical event. The Luftwaffe needed to find ways to allow pilots forced to ditch in the English Channel or North Sea to survive that ordeal long enough to be rescued. Before they could figure out how to extend the lifetime of pilots in those waters, they needed to know what it was about those conditions that caused people to die.
They collected that information by immersing concentration camp inmates in baths of icy water to observe how the cold and wet conditions killed them. Because it required less ice, less time, and smaller tubs, the test subjects were Jewish children. The results of these observations provided the Luftwaffe with information that helped downed pilots live longer. After the war, the information was used to design survival gear for anyone that might have to subject themselves to the rigors of icy waters.
Last I heard, the data is still available and is still used to save lives. Saving the lives of others is the only silver lining to the black cloud of the murder of children. No amount of dead sailors or oil rig workers from hypothermia would ever bring those children back, so it would be wrong not to use the information to save lives. Collecting the data (murdering the children) was a crime against humanity, but destroying the data would have meant that only nazi pilots benefited from it.
The Doctor is as guilty as the hologram of the Cardassian doctor. Funny he used some of the techniques to save Tores yet, doesn't think he did anything wrong..talk about being hypocrite!
Yeah, that's what I hated most of this episode. The BS and rubish arguments by the EMH. HIS knowledge come from just as bad and horrible experiments, but they where never brought up.
The discussion in itself is a worth wile one, but the "conclusion" was bogus and hasty.
I don't think Doc didn't think he did anything wrong, but he couldn't delete his own program so all he did was assuage his own guilt by deleting the other guy. Kinda pathetic really since he accomplished nothing. Sure the directly related data was deleted, but the research that work influenced would still there...and be used across the alpha quadrant. His deleting those files was meaningless, only to make himself and a few complainers FEEL better. Welcome to your humanity Doc, FEELS great, doesn't it?
This is a very old argument. Knowledge and technology are in themselves not evil or good - it depends on how they are used. If one has ethical concerns about the source of the knowledge then one can take some consulation in the knowledge at every life saved is a small atonement for the lives taken in an earlier time.
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Imagine the fractal possibility and that the same decision has been elected many, many times.
So all the medical advances MADE at the cost of Human lives should be abolished!?
You are the biggest fool then,Doctor.
The next evil doctor: "You use the knowledge gained from the previous doctor, you'll use this knowledge too. Torture and murder are a necessary evil to gain medical knowledge."
@@FortoFight It could be stated that it might incentivise it, but the issue with that is that we use medical stuff that came from human experimentation today, WW2, Project Paperclip, the list goes on. So even the doctor has information that contained torture on humans.