DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[CharlesPhipps]

There's no consistent level of technology in the setting. I prefer limits versus, "The tech can fix everything."

[DoctorWTF]

The problem is that with all the stuff they do cure, much of what they say they can't cure feels just a touch contrived. There's a whole mess of episodes that involve the medical staff finding a cure for some brand new disease, treating some newly-discovered lifeform whose biology they've just started learning about, or otherwise curing some condition which by all logic should be WAY harder to cure than most physical disabilities (such as being turned into a salamander, or having big chunks of your body replaced with Borg hardware).

With the state of their science (particularly considering the exponential pace of technology across human history), even when they don't have a cure for something right then, they should most likely be able to develop one far more quickly than real-life medical research. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that was the actual idea behind the "Farm" from Lower Decks - not "we can fix everything", but "We can't fix you now, so come and stay at our resort/long-term care facility/research hospital and we'll help make your life not suck while our scientists figure out how to cure what ails you".

At least with the episode "Ethics", they had the excuse that they didn't know an awful lot about the Klingon nervous system (courtesy of the Klingons' "better dead than crippled" policy), and Worf didn't look like he'd be okay with living with a disability for even the few years it could plausibly have taken them to learn about it.

[Madner Kami]

(such as being turned into a salamander, or having big chunks of your body replaced with Borg hardware).

Particulary the later is just bonkers, as it's effect varies so much during the course of the franchise. Here you have Picard, who can be mostly healed in what is a matter of days, yet lateron it's implied, that some parts still remain within, because how could he "hear" the Borg in First Contact or magically daydream about them just as they make a completely random move after years of apparent inactivity?
Or Annika Hansen, a girl who was assimilated at the age of 6, who, once removed from the collective 17 years later, clearly can not live without her implants whatsoever and needs a "skinsuit" to help her survive, given most of her skin was non-existant due to the Borg-implants having replaced almost all surface-area of her body. Picard could deal with that in a matter of days, she wears the suit for arguably 5 years (despite her sometimes being displayed without it and already having regrown proper skin, in one instance even within days after having been freed from the collective and from some implants). We can regrow skin nowadays already and while covering areas as large as an entire body is kind of problematic, it can be done and doesn't need years to work out.
And then there are "XBs" from Star Trek Picard, a series that is named and centers around a character once assimilated and essentially completely freed from the Borg Collective within a matter of days, who just can not function as normal human beings even after what is implied to be years of treatment and thus still remaining as semi-comatose and completely apathetic beings.

Gawd, if there's one thing I hate more than anything, then it's inconsistency. I mean, some parts will be missed, forgotten, misremembered, always, particularly if it's small things. But such big deals? Come on, how hard can it be?

[Link8909]

(such as being turned into a salamander, or having big chunks of your body replaced with Borg hardware).

Particulary the later is just bonkers, as it's effect varies so much during the course of the franchise. Here you have Picard, who can be mostly healed in what is a matter of days, yet lateron it's implied, that some parts still remain within, because how could he "hear" the Borg in First Contact or magically daydream about them just as they make a completely random move after years of apparent inactivity?
Or Annika Hansen, a girl who was assimilated at the age of 6, who, once removed from the collective 17 years later, clearly can not live without her implants whatsoever and needs a "skinsuit" to help her survive, given most of her skin was non-existant due to the Borg-implants having replaced almost all surface-area of her body. Picard could deal with that in a matter of days, she wears the suit for arguably 5 years (despite her sometimes being displayed without it and already having regrown proper skin, in one instance even within days after having been freed from the collective and from some implants). We can regrow skin nowadays already and while covering areas as large as an entire body is kind of problematic, it can be done and doesn't need years to work out.
And then there are "XBs" from Star Trek Picard, a series that is named and centers around a character once assimilated and essentially completely freed from the Borg Collective within a matter of days, who just can not function as normal human beings even after what is implied to be years of treatment and thus still remaining as semi-comatose and completely apathetic beings.

Gawd, if there's one thing I hate more than anything, then it's inconsistency. I mean, some parts will be missed, forgotten, misremembered, always, particularly if it's small things. But such big deals? Come on, how hard can it be?

That's True, even with a long running franchise like Star Trek I feel it's always struggled to keep it's world consistent.

But I feel that it's fine to have varying side affects from being disconnected from the Borg as not only are their physical scares, but psychologically ones too, and mental health problems like PTSD can wildly vary from person to person.

And they're are ways one can justify these variants in-universe, for instance Captain Picard was only assimilated as an adult and for 6 days so his implants could be removed without and problems, while Seven who was assimilated at 6 and was in the Collective for 17 years, her implants were so embedded that most became vital for her to keep alive, this could also be the case for the XB's.

Plus as I said, how such a process like assimilation can affect someone psychologically can wildly vary, for Captain Picard to be striped of all free will and have his body and mind be used to destroy that he swore to protect, that clearly left him with PTSD and I'm happy that this gets explored in "I, Borg", First Contact and in Star Trek Picard, while for Seven who spent most of her life in the Collective, was placed in a maturation chamber for 5 years were the hive mind restructure her synaptic pathways and purge her individuality, and essentially destroying Annika Hansen, knew nothing else but life as a drone, essentially suffering with Stockholm Syndrome after being disconnected, this could well be similar to the XB's, that those drones that been connected to the hive mind for so long that they only know how to be a drone and like Seven are slowly regaining their individuality.

Regardless, I'm honestly happy that the trauma of assimilation does get explored within the franchise, unlike the said salamander incident that had zero repercussions and has remand unspoken of since.

[CharlesPhipps]

At least with the episode "Ethics", they had the excuse that they didn't know an awful lot about the Klingon nervous system (courtesy of the Klingons' "better dead than crippled" policy), and Worf didn't look like he'd be okay with living with a disability for even the few years it could plausibly have taken them to learn about it.

Honestly, Crusher's doctoral ethics suck. She has no regard for the feelings of the patient when it conflicts with her views.

[DoctorWTF]

Honestly, Crusher's doctoral ethics suck. She has no regard for the feelings of the patient when it conflicts with her views.

To be fair, her attitude towards the idea of Worf killing himself isn't that much different from what one would expect from the average real-world doctor.

Though you are right in that Crusher was brazenly dismissive of Worf's adherence to Klingon tradition. Picard tried to explain to her that getting someone like him to abandon deeply-held beliefs is WAY harder than she seemed to think, but she appeared not to care. Though there was no sign that she had ever bothered trying, as though she was planning to just forcibly prevent Worf from self-terminating and somehow expect him to figure out for himself that living with a disability isn't as bad as he thinks.

It might have been nice for someone to explain to Worf that the Federation has a much more enlightened view of people with disabilities than his homeworld, that there'd be no danger of his peers seeing him as a burden or object of pity as he thought (even if there's no plausible way it would have changed his mind).

[CharlesPhipps]

It might have been nice for someone to explain to Worf that the Federation has a much more enlightened view of people with disabilities than his homeworld, that there'd be no danger of his peers seeing him as a burden or object of pity as he thought (even if there's no plausible way it would have changed his mind).

Worf obviously would know this. I think it's that Worf considered it a betrayal of his cultural values to do so.

Worf never wanted to synthesize Klingon and human values. He wanted to be doubly Klingon.

[Freeverse]

I suppose you could have characters who WANT to remain disabled, but that doesn't work for representation because you've sorta shifted the subtext of the work given that in this situation it becomes a personal choice. Which is why I don't necessarily feel like it's completely a social construct like gender or sexuality, BECAUSE those constructs lean on choice, even if it's a biologically-prompted choice. A person who is disabled and chooses to remain disabled does throw their lot in with the "it's a choice" side of the social construct, but most do not, especially when they didn't grow up coming into this identity of their own will or self-discovery. Either way, if you say your future tech makes disability a matter of choice that is itself a whole can of worms and still leaves on the table representation for the sake of people who do not choose to tacitly accept disability.

That actually raises an interesting philosophical question I've sometimes pondered. With stuff like race, gender, and sexuality, treating people right pretty much boils down to "don't be an asshole" - it basically costs people nothing to refrain from wanton bigotry. Whereas allowing people with disabilities to properly function in society often requires designing public spaces to be accessible to them, which takes time and money.

The thing about designing public spaces to be more accessible is that it can actually be helpful in ways that go beyond the accommodation that was originally intended. It's called the Curb-Cut Effect, named after those little ramps that many sidewalk curbs have. That design was meant for people in wheelchairs, but it ended up being quite helpful for shopping carts, bikes, hand-trucks and other such things.

So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?

I actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.

I mean, you can't force someone to accept help if they don't want to, and that includes potential treatments as well as accommodations. If they refuse to undergo treatment and refuse to use whatever accommodations that the majority of people with the same condition use, then we have to respect their choice, even if it leads to their suffering.

[Madner Kami]

So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?

I actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.

I mean, you can't force someone to accept help if they don't want to, and that includes potential treatments as well as accommodations. If they refuse to undergo treatment and refuse to use whatever accommodations that the majority of people with the same condition use, then we have to respect their choice, even if it leads to their suffering.

Indeed the answers are easy. People who have no choice, should be helped by society. People who choose not to be helped, have no right to demand society to bend over backwards to fullfill their whims. There is no right to be a burden to the society you live in or, in other words, your personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.

[P.S.: Sorry for the editing, I wrote this on my phone and my auto-correction just doesn't work the way it should, when writing in english]

[Freeverse]

So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?

I actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.

I mean, you can't force someone to accept help if they don't want to, and that includes potential treatments as well as accommodations. If they refuse to undergo treatment and refuse to use whatever accommodations that the majority of people with the same condition use, then we have to respect their choice, even if it leads to their suffering.

Indeed the answers are easy. People who have no choice, should be helped by society. People who choose not to be helped, have no right to demand society to bend over backwards to fullfill their whims. There is no right to be a burden to the society you live in or, in other words have, your personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.

OK, so, assuming that there are absolutely no risks or trade-offs for treatment kind of makes the question moot, because if every available treatment is literally perfect we're dealing with a society so advanced that there would be no need for accommodations, or more accurately that accommodations would be so trivial that every member of the society could just make their own. Which means that we're talking about people who are simply not sure they want to take the risks, or are more willing to continue on as they are than to take whatever downside comes with the treatment. In which case...

Who is and isn't a "burden" on society? How are we going to make that determination? What's the base-line? What if one disability is affecting your choice to get treatment for another? Who's going to go around proving which people have a choice and which people don't? Should we have disability police making sure that no one who doesn't "deserve" it accidentally gets help? Does whether or not you "deserve" help have anything to do with your ability to work? Is there a policy of zero help if you can't provide proof your disability was untreatable? Should we bar people from using disability resources that are currently not needed by the people who have no choice, no matter how much of those resources are just sitting in reserve doing no good for anyone? Did you know that versions of the policies I'm rhetorically asking about exist and are actually harmful to the people who need help the most? Because being forced to prove you're disabled is dehumanizing and you may not have the ability to do the things that are required of you to get the proof that you are expected to have in order to get the help you need? What was up with that episode of Xena where Gabriella dreamed she was a mermaid with weird fish babies?

uh... anyway. It's probably easier to just give help to... whoever wants it? Yeah, that sounds right.