Jump to content

How does Doc hit Dunbar in 3x09 Future's End - Part 2


jmdsouth
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi you guys just wondering how the doc hits Dunbar in episode 3x09 in the black limo when he first gets his mobile emitter since he is under the Hippocratic Oath? ealier in the episode he does say he is in the process of retrieving his memory files due to a program loss? perhaps this is the reason why he can physically assault him? just wondering what you lot think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my understanding, but the Doctor is flexible, like a human.

 

He is willing to, bend rules but not nesscarily break them all the time. He knew someone wasn't going to die or suffer permant injury from a punch to the face, or a phaser blast set on maximum stun.

 

Of course his ethical protocols are still there, he actively does not wish to harm any living being, but if nesscarily in terms of self defense and protecting someone else, I think he'll bend that rule a little.

 

Let's not forget Beverly has fired a phaser at people before plenty of times. So has Bashir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely, but bev isnt a great parallel to draw. Humans are far more flexible in their ability to break or bend rules than a hologram is. Just because Beverly Crusher can, if necessary, open a can of whoopass on someone doesn't mean that a holographic doctor programmed to do no harm can necessarily do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Data , in an episode called 'The Most Toys', was prepared to kill Kivas Fajo, who had kidnapped him for his rarities collection, after he killed his assistant in a particularly painful fashion for helping Data escape even though Fajo was disarmed and posed no immediate threat. He reasoned Fajo would continue his evil activities and kill others if allowed to continue. He had actually shot at him when the Enterprise crew beamed them up and Fajo's life was spared only because the transporter deactivated the weapon as a safety measure. He very clearly intended to violate his programming by killing an unarmed man. If Data's life expreiences allowed him to move beyond the strictures of his original programming, there is no reason the Doctor could not have done the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely' date=' but bev isnt a great parallel to draw. Humans are far more flexible in their ability to break or bend rules than a hologram is. Just because Beverly Crusher can, if necessary, open a can of whoopass on someone doesn't mean that a holographic doctor programmed to do no harm can necessarily do the same.[/quote']

 

Normally I would agree.

 

But when was the last time a hologram in Star Trek did what it was programmed to actually do? Moriarity wasn't specifically programmed to be sentient and take control of the ship, but he had the ability. The Doctor isn't programmed to harm people but if it calls for it he can. Holograms are just as flexible as humans. Technologically speaking yes they should do as programmed but that never really goes quite right in any Trek series so far o_O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. Sure the mobile emitter gave him pretty much the freedoms of a humanoid, he did have his limitations. One could argue the need to recharge his emitter and such would be akin to our having to eat or sleep, however his actual physicial program needs storage capacity of some kind plus he can eventually run out of memory (which they never really solved it just didn't come up again).

 

Now if Moriarity had an emitter, oh he'd be human allright. Cause the second he became a tangible object, thus being evil and "real" Picard wouldn't hesitate to kill him. Gotta be a life form of some kind to physically die (though I guess you could say the same for the Doctor, even though he was "good" in comparison).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hippcratic oath doesn't work that way. I mean, a doctor can punch someone in self-defense or to save himself without violating the oath. The hippocratic oath prohibits a physician to do any harm in a medical sense of the word. Just because you take the hippocratic oath as a physician doesn't automatically turn you into a pacifist. I assume the programming in the EMH system reflects this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the episode Hero's and Demons - the Doctor had to carry a device onto the holodeck and Torres said it meant his program would have to be set so that the device wouldn't just go through him - this meant he was like a solid being - i think the Doctor eventually got to change that setting himself - he can configure his program to allow or disallow matter to pass through him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the episode Hero's and Demons - the Doctor had to carry a device onto the holodeck and Torres said it meant his program would have to be set so that the device wouldn't just go through him - this meant he was like a solid being - i think the Doctor eventually got to change that setting himself - he can configure his program to allow or disallow matter to pass through him...

The thread starters question was regarding the ethical issues surronding the fact that the doctor is a hologram who has to obey the hippocratic oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hippcratic oath doesn't work that way. I mean' date=' a doctor can punch someone in self-defense or to save himself without violating the oath. The hippocratic oath prohibits a physician to do any harm in a medical sense of the word. Just because you take the hippocratic oath as a physician doesn't automatically turn you into a pacifist. I assume the programming in the EMH system reflects this.[/quote']

 

Yes. He can do no harm when rendering medical services, or treating a patient in some way. If he's not with a patient, the hippocratic oath does not apply.

 

Here is a three line section of the hippocratic oath:

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. (Probably better translated "any one"?)

 

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. (This puts Dr. Kevorkian in a clear violation, no?)

 

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. (Betcha didn't know this line was in there)

Of course that's just the ancient version, as reported by wikipedia.org.

A commonly used modern version can be seen at www.pbs.org/.../oath_modern.html. This version was written by the Dean of Tufts School of Medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...