Ethical Dilemmas Brought Up In Star Trek Voyager's, Latent Image.

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Jimbee68, Jan 10, 2025.

  1. Jimbee68

    Jimbee68 Member

    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    738
    I saw the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Latent Image" (air date January 20, 1999) when it first came out. I was immediately struck by the ethical issues it raised. During a routine medical examination, the Doctor discovers evidence that Ensign Harry Kim has undergone complex brain surgery within the last two years which only the Doctor could have performed. The Doctor eventually finds his memory erased due to trauma that happened then. After an attack during an away mission, the Doctor could only treat one of two equally critically injured patients, Ensign Jetal and Ensign Harry Kim. He chooses Kim. But he later feels his friendship with Kim affected his judgement more than the actual facts of the case. After an altercation in the mess hall, Captain Janeway feels the only option is to erase his memory of the event. Because he is becoming unstable and aggressive due to a feedback loop between his ethical and cognitive subroutines. And she could lose the ship's only doctor that way.

    The Doctor, just puzzled at first, tries to solve this mystery. But when the Doctor finds out the truth, even after attempts by Janeway and crew to thwart that, the crew is faced with a dilemma. They could just erase his memory again. Or the Doctor could be given counseling and treated like any crew member in need of psychological help. Like most episodes about the Doctor, this one deals with medical ethics, personhood, decision making, and human rights. Some people also think this episode also deals with a Sophie's choice, or a decision between two options where neither option is preferable and with no good outcome.

    I also thought at the time it involved the right to know, especially when the information is painful. I remember my mother said that she was very close to her father. And she spent many hours in the hospital by his bed when he was terminally ill. When she went to get a drink of water, he suddenly died. A nurse was about to tell her the details of his death, but my mother told her not to. That last example may have partly to do with volunteering information. And also I think of withholding information, as an ethical dilemma too. Like when a relative is murdered in some violent way, the police may withhold the way he or she died. Or if the family keeps asking, they may tell them pointblank that they won't give them that information because they know it would upset them. There is the idea of age and maturity that comes with that last one. If the family is still told by the police, they may not tell the children in the family until they are older. Or, they may even lie to them how their relative died, but tell the truth when they are older, along with why they had to lie.

    I sometimes tell people I have a more abstract example from some future dystopia of how this dilemma might come up. An ideal world state doesn't tell their citizens about the past. The witch hunts, the torture of heretics, the genocides. Because they know it will just upset them. There's nothing to learn from knowing about them, because they will never happen again. But they just think it will upset their citizens. I think most people today would agree. We have the right to know about all the tragedies and human injustices of the past. Or, I have another example from that same future dystopia. A woman is grieving the loss of her husband. And the grieving process isn't going well. In fact, like the Doctor above, she will just never be the same again. In fact, the state determines, she will never heal. So they tell her, you're being selfish about all of this. So, like with the Doctor, they tell her, we will erase your memory, so that it will be like your husband never existed. Now, that last one doesn't just deal with the right to know of the tragedies and injustices of the past, and people of the past. But the right to know of people who were close to you in your life. So their memory lives on too, some people might say.

    I also encounter this kind of dilemma with my views on the death penalty. For some time now, I have supported the death penalty. But only as a form of euthanasia. To protect society, and so the offenders don't have to be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. But even some time back, I saw a dilemma with that idea. People always have the right to know they are about to be executed by the state. But that could create a lot of painful anxiety up till and just before the event. I am BTW beginning to lean more and more against the death penalty. Plus, I was thinking some sedative or antianxiety drug could deal with that problem. Actually, that might be the solution to the widow dilemma above. If she can't manage the loss of her husband, she might still have the right to remember him and mourn. But maybe she could be given some existing or future drug to help her manage her sorrow and depression.

    Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2025

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice