Hi all,
I was having a conversation with a very good friend of mine, and he was relating a tale from long, long ago, in which he wrecked a convention session of Trek by simply using his head.
Here's the set-up:
A set of terrorists had seized hostages and were holding them for ransom.
Starfleet responded in force, but the situation has quickly reached an impasse. If Starfleet raided their stronghold (or failed to meet their demands), the terrorists would kill their hostages.
Normal technological solutions such as transporters and stun grenades were apparently out of the question due to time constraints, and the lifesigns were too similar to differentiate between good guys and bad guys.
With a number of their prisoners wounded and dying, the terrorists agreed to accept a Starfleet medical officer ( a doctor) to care for their prisoners (and incidentally to gain an additional hostage as well).
While the medical officer worked, he carefully marked the position of each terrorist and when the opportunity presented itself, pulled his phaser and stunned each of the terrorists unconscious- ending the stand-off.
Now clearly, the terrorists were fools for: 1) taking hostages in the first place and 2) failing to properly search the medic when he arrived.
According to my friend, the argument was made that our friendly neighborhood Starfleet medic could not shoot the prisoners because he's a medic and therefore a "non-combatant". It was argued that the Hippocratic Oath states "First, do no harm" (which is accurate).
But the oath also states:
Does ending the stand-off quickly and expeditiously qualify as "all measures that are required for the benefit of the sick"? Or does it constitute "overtreatment"?I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
The doctor unquestionably violated the trust of the terrorists, betraying them to prison at the least. Does this constitute saving lives, or "playing God"?Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
In your opinion, did the Doctor uphold his calling as a Starfleet officer or betray his calling as a doctor?I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
Is there really a conflict between the two?
The immediate threat to the life and health of his patients were the terrorists holding them hostage. Did the doctor's actions constitute "prevention" or "overreach"?
Is such a character a Starfleet officer first and a medic second? Or is it the otherway around?
To my simple mind, the doctor's quick thinking and swift action saved the lives of all of his patients.May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
In the vein of the recent Prime Directive thread, however, I'm interested in the take of my fellow Narrators:
Do the lives of said doctor's patients (and his obligation to uphold Federation law) trump the unusually narrow interpretation of the Hippocratic oath insisted upon at the convention?
Keep in mind that the Oath is now optional- most doctors still take the oath, but it is no longer mandatory to do so.
This isn't the first time a Starfleet medic has been called upon to serve "the greater good" at the expense of his patient.
If memory serves, Doctor Piper kept Gary Mitchell heavily sedated (an action in direct contradiction to the interest of his patient) in order for Kirk to maroon him on Delta Vega.
Doctor McCoy wasn't above using weapons- or even killing- in order to preserve life- but we also saw several instances where he abused his medical authority in order to serve what he saw as the greater good-
First, he slipped Jim Kirk a mickey finn and faked the Captain's death during Spock's mating ritual.
Later, dealing with the Vians, McCoy sedated first the Captain and then Spock in order to ensure that it was he, not they, who was to be tortured to death.
In your considered opinions my fellow narrators, are the actions of these doctors a violation of the Starfleet code of honor, or are they in fact an example of the finest traditions of the Service?
Where would you draw the line?