-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Did Franklin do the right thing in "Believers"?
- Thread starter The_One
- Start date
GaribaldisHair
Regular
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"?
There are enough parallels here with what happens in the "Civilised" part of the Earth that we cannot say "Of course he did the right thing".
The obvious one has already been mentioned, the refusal of a Jehovah's Witness to allow blood transfusion even if it means death.
As far as the Hippocratic Oath is concerned, does it not "do harm" to refuse to allow a sane and rational person (or being) to make a choice about their own life and well-being. At best it shows a complete and utter lack of respect for them and (in this case) their beliefs.
As someone with strong religious beliefs myself I would be horrified if I thought that on admission to hospital a doctor could perform any treatment or procedure on me that they wished even over my explicit objections.
And who are we to judge that the parents' beliefs are "stupid" when we all watched Delenn release captured "souls" from the Soulhunters' orbs just a few episodes earlier.
Without wanting to be seen trying to put words into JMS' mouth, I think the strongest message that "Believers" carries is that there is not always a right answer.
Eat your heart out Star Trek.
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
There are enough parallels here with what happens in the "Civilised" part of the Earth that we cannot say "Of course he did the right thing".
The obvious one has already been mentioned, the refusal of a Jehovah's Witness to allow blood transfusion even if it means death.
As far as the Hippocratic Oath is concerned, does it not "do harm" to refuse to allow a sane and rational person (or being) to make a choice about their own life and well-being. At best it shows a complete and utter lack of respect for them and (in this case) their beliefs.
As someone with strong religious beliefs myself I would be horrified if I thought that on admission to hospital a doctor could perform any treatment or procedure on me that they wished even over my explicit objections.
And who are we to judge that the parents' beliefs are "stupid" when we all watched Delenn release captured "souls" from the Soulhunters' orbs just a few episodes earlier.
Without wanting to be seen trying to put words into JMS' mouth, I think the strongest message that "Believers" carries is that there is not always a right answer.
Eat your heart out Star Trek.
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
crazybillyo
Regular
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"
Franklin should've played on the naivete of the parents a little more. At the beginning, he started to do this, comforting Shon and his parents with false hopes (the techno-medical babble and the industrial goo thing). After that, though, it was just him trying to enforce what he believes. Instead of trying to force his ways on the parents and Shon, he should've kept up an elaborate deception.
After Shon's parents deny surgery on religious grounds, he should've kept up the act of using confusing words to make them stay, and say that there is still a chance they could save him. At this point, he could've done the operation, and claimed that, magically, some of this "medicine" worked. Shon and his parents never would know the truth, assuming signs of surgery could be erased, and given it's 2258, that probably isn't hard to do.
This, of course, hinges on Franklin's willingness to actually deceive his parents. If he would've concentrated on saving the boy instead of making it a public debacle, then the boy might still be alive, all oblivious. And that would also eliminate most of the plot, too. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif But what is plot compared to the life of a young child? /forums/images/graemlins/devil.gif
*CBO modifies the script ever so slightly*
Franklin: There is another option. We could give him this pill. Monoblingblingwerdoxide is known to sometimes eliminate shiznit of this kind.
At which, a while later, Shon miraculously appears totally healed.
His parents, at the paragon of joy, discourse to Franklin their gratitude. Afterwards, Franklin opens a bottle of champagne, and gets horribly drunk, since he can't hold his liquor. Shon continues to hold the egg for the next 2 years until it hatches to become a large pigmy marmoset.
A happy ending for all.
But concerning the religious/medical question, who was in the right given the context of the show, well...
*shrugs*
Franklin should've played on the naivete of the parents a little more. At the beginning, he started to do this, comforting Shon and his parents with false hopes (the techno-medical babble and the industrial goo thing). After that, though, it was just him trying to enforce what he believes. Instead of trying to force his ways on the parents and Shon, he should've kept up an elaborate deception.
After Shon's parents deny surgery on religious grounds, he should've kept up the act of using confusing words to make them stay, and say that there is still a chance they could save him. At this point, he could've done the operation, and claimed that, magically, some of this "medicine" worked. Shon and his parents never would know the truth, assuming signs of surgery could be erased, and given it's 2258, that probably isn't hard to do.
This, of course, hinges on Franklin's willingness to actually deceive his parents. If he would've concentrated on saving the boy instead of making it a public debacle, then the boy might still be alive, all oblivious. And that would also eliminate most of the plot, too. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif But what is plot compared to the life of a young child? /forums/images/graemlins/devil.gif
*CBO modifies the script ever so slightly*
Franklin: There is another option. We could give him this pill. Monoblingblingwerdoxide is known to sometimes eliminate shiznit of this kind.
At which, a while later, Shon miraculously appears totally healed.
His parents, at the paragon of joy, discourse to Franklin their gratitude. Afterwards, Franklin opens a bottle of champagne, and gets horribly drunk, since he can't hold his liquor. Shon continues to hold the egg for the next 2 years until it hatches to become a large pigmy marmoset.
A happy ending for all.
But concerning the religious/medical question, who was in the right given the context of the show, well...
*shrugs*
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"
Medical science will certainly have advanced by the 23rd century, but I'm not sure it will have reached the point where you can cut open somebody's chest and leave no visible mark immediately after the surgery. Also Shon didn't have very much time any way you cut it - if Franklin tap-danced too long, the boy would die. Given that Franklin didn't do what you suggest, I think we have to assume that performing completely undetectable surgery is not possible with the tech available in MedLab - otherwise he would almost certainly have done it, and not asked Sinclair's permission. And in that case we wouldn't have an episode, because there would be no dramatic dillema.
Regards,
Joe
Medical science will certainly have advanced by the 23rd century, but I'm not sure it will have reached the point where you can cut open somebody's chest and leave no visible mark immediately after the surgery. Also Shon didn't have very much time any way you cut it - if Franklin tap-danced too long, the boy would die. Given that Franklin didn't do what you suggest, I think we have to assume that performing completely undetectable surgery is not possible with the tech available in MedLab - otherwise he would almost certainly have done it, and not asked Sinclair's permission. And in that case we wouldn't have an episode, because there would be no dramatic dillema.
Regards,
Joe
Galahad
Regular
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"
And you are also assuming that the parents didn't know just by looking at him that he had lost his soul, OK granted it was pretty obvious what he had done, but whose to say that they couldn't detect a lack of something in his eyes. We might laugh at that, but we don't when Sheridan says he looked in Anna's eyes and the woman he loved wasn't there any more, where exactly is the difference? I personally think Shon was OK, but that one is not for me to call.
And you are also assuming that the parents didn't know just by looking at him that he had lost his soul, OK granted it was pretty obvious what he had done, but whose to say that they couldn't detect a lack of something in his eyes. We might laugh at that, but we don't when Sheridan says he looked in Anna's eyes and the woman he loved wasn't there any more, where exactly is the difference? I personally think Shon was OK, but that one is not for me to call.
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"
A lesson in the medical professions for those that need it. The hypocratic oath is one of many pledges that a doctor makes before embarking on their career. There are countless others, including respect for others beliefs. Moral and ethical decisions make up a large part of the medical professions, and although the hypocratic oath may seemingly contradict the respect for other beliefs (Read: inadvertently harming a patient), it should not be taken out of context. Example: walking away from victims of a road traffic accident goes against the hypocratic oath; being unable to give treatment due to circumstances beyond their capacity does not.
Franklin spoke of the hypocratic oath as though it were the only pledge he made in his profession (if true, he should never have been allowed near a patient, let alone preach his ideals). In a modern day society (especially one set in 2258), the hypocratic oath should be used in conjunction with other pledges; used with common sense, professional judgement, not to be taken out of context, nor used as sole justification for an action. There are many grey areas in medicine, largely made up of moral and ethical questions. It is not as much of an exact science as some would believe. As such, having a temper tantrum, spouting "I took a hypocratic oath", is almost as unhelpful as "Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!".
As for the short-sighted suggestions made in this forum about doing the operation anyway and deceiving the patient, I severely question the morals of such people, and only hope they never in their lives consider a career in the medical professions. Who cares if the scars can be hidden by modern technology? Prove that surface scars are the only scars present. Just because you can't see the scarring of ones soul, does not mean it does not exist. If you can believe that Minbari souls were being born into the next generation of humans, or even the whole 'Soul Hunter' thing, then why would it be unimaginable to think that surgery could release Shon's soul.
Deceiving a patient in this manner is ludicrous. Even a placebo has moral implications, and has to be conducted under the most careful manner. For example, if 100 people join a clinical trial, they have to be informed that some will receive a placebo, and others a legitimate drug; they just won't know who. Injecting saline solution into a patient who requires pain killers also has moral implications. Everything a doctor does has moral implications, you just have to think before you act, rather than storm around like a petulant child.
A lesson in the medical professions for those that need it. The hypocratic oath is one of many pledges that a doctor makes before embarking on their career. There are countless others, including respect for others beliefs. Moral and ethical decisions make up a large part of the medical professions, and although the hypocratic oath may seemingly contradict the respect for other beliefs (Read: inadvertently harming a patient), it should not be taken out of context. Example: walking away from victims of a road traffic accident goes against the hypocratic oath; being unable to give treatment due to circumstances beyond their capacity does not.
Franklin spoke of the hypocratic oath as though it were the only pledge he made in his profession (if true, he should never have been allowed near a patient, let alone preach his ideals). In a modern day society (especially one set in 2258), the hypocratic oath should be used in conjunction with other pledges; used with common sense, professional judgement, not to be taken out of context, nor used as sole justification for an action. There are many grey areas in medicine, largely made up of moral and ethical questions. It is not as much of an exact science as some would believe. As such, having a temper tantrum, spouting "I took a hypocratic oath", is almost as unhelpful as "Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!".
As for the short-sighted suggestions made in this forum about doing the operation anyway and deceiving the patient, I severely question the morals of such people, and only hope they never in their lives consider a career in the medical professions. Who cares if the scars can be hidden by modern technology? Prove that surface scars are the only scars present. Just because you can't see the scarring of ones soul, does not mean it does not exist. If you can believe that Minbari souls were being born into the next generation of humans, or even the whole 'Soul Hunter' thing, then why would it be unimaginable to think that surgery could release Shon's soul.
Deceiving a patient in this manner is ludicrous. Even a placebo has moral implications, and has to be conducted under the most careful manner. For example, if 100 people join a clinical trial, they have to be informed that some will receive a placebo, and others a legitimate drug; they just won't know who. Injecting saline solution into a patient who requires pain killers also has moral implications. Everything a doctor does has moral implications, you just have to think before you act, rather than storm around like a petulant child.
KoshFan
Regular
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"
Well said. In my opinion, Franklin could not live with himself if he did not perform the operation, and could not live with himself if he lied about it. Catch 22. All he could do was do what he felt right and stand by his decision.
Also note that if Shon's parents didn't notice immediately that his soul was gone, Shon must have told them, knowing what they would do. He went to it willingly.
Well said. In my opinion, Franklin could not live with himself if he did not perform the operation, and could not live with himself if he lied about it. Catch 22. All he could do was do what he felt right and stand by his decision.
Also note that if Shon's parents didn't notice immediately that his soul was gone, Shon must have told them, knowing what they would do. He went to it willingly.
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"?
...er, he did? i'm pretty sure (it's been a while since i saw The Gathering) that Laurel was very insistent that they DIDN'T inform Sinclair when Lyta scanned Kosh. then from the results of the scan Ben Kyle was able to locate the poison tab and fix up a cure - never needing Sinclair's approval and/or authorisation. or have i forgottenn something?!
as for doing the right thing, the point i always took from this episode was that *everyone* did the right thing from their point of view/belief system. Franklin would have regretted not at least trying to save the child and the child's parents would have regretted allowing him to live once his soul had 'escaped'.
again, as previously mentioned, it's so refreshing for a show that doesn't fall back on the Trek methodology of converting others to 'our' rigid, and always correct!, belief system.
...er, he did? i'm pretty sure (it's been a while since i saw The Gathering) that Laurel was very insistent that they DIDN'T inform Sinclair when Lyta scanned Kosh. then from the results of the scan Ben Kyle was able to locate the poison tab and fix up a cure - never needing Sinclair's approval and/or authorisation. or have i forgottenn something?!
as for doing the right thing, the point i always took from this episode was that *everyone* did the right thing from their point of view/belief system. Franklin would have regretted not at least trying to save the child and the child's parents would have regretted allowing him to live once his soul had 'escaped'.
again, as previously mentioned, it's so refreshing for a show that doesn't fall back on the Trek methodology of converting others to 'our' rigid, and always correct!, belief system.
Oatley1
Beyond the rim
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"?
For me, the most intriguing dynamic in the episode is the fact that Franklin recognises that no matter what road he takes, he will be breaking with one of his beliefs - the classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. His call was to choose the lesser of two evils, from the perspective of his belief system. So, saving the child outweighs the rights of the parents and the child over their life.
So, at the end, he chose the ends justifying the means. Was he right? That can only be answered from the POV of your own belief system, which will in many cases be at odds with others. (From my POV, he was right, but it leaves my uneasy that he ran roughshod over the patient's rights).
For me, the most intriguing dynamic in the episode is the fact that Franklin recognises that no matter what road he takes, he will be breaking with one of his beliefs - the classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. His call was to choose the lesser of two evils, from the perspective of his belief system. So, saving the child outweighs the rights of the parents and the child over their life.
So, at the end, he chose the ends justifying the means. Was he right? That can only be answered from the POV of your own belief system, which will in many cases be at odds with others. (From my POV, he was right, but it leaves my uneasy that he ran roughshod over the patient's rights).
A_M_Swallow
Regular
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"?
Not telling Sinclair makes sense. Psi Corps would be worried that Sinclair would ban the scan. Psi Corps's leaders have been wanting to scan a Vorlon for many years.
Not telling Sinclair makes sense. Psi Corps would be worried that Sinclair would ban the scan. Psi Corps's leaders have been wanting to scan a Vorlon for many years.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: Did Franklin do the right thing in \"Believers\"?
I'll have to look at the disc again, but I'm pretty sure that once Sinclair is presented with the fait accompli of the scan, he gives Kyle explicit permission to proceed with the treatment.
Regards,
Joe
I'll have to look at the disc again, but I'm pretty sure that once Sinclair is presented with the fait accompli of the scan, he gives Kyle explicit permission to proceed with the treatment.
Regards,
Joe
Sinclair\'s last decision
Last night I showed this episode to a friend of mine who I am trying to "convert" to the B5 religion /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Anyway, he liked most of the ep, and actually cheered out loud when Sinclair took the decision to support the parents. However, he was pretty disappointed when Sinclair didn't fire Franklin after he performed the operation.
We had a nice argument about this. The way I see it, Sinclair knows Franklin has learned his lesson, plus he recognizes Franklin's decision as a strenght that can be helpful in another situation. My friend argues that the only reason he didn't fire him was because Franklin is in the main credits, and that no sensible commander would keep Franklin after he disobeyed direct orders and created a situation that could have created a major diplomatic incident.
Anyway, I was wondering if any of you has ever thought about this and what your opinion was? Did Sinclair made the "right" choice by not asking Franklin's resignation?
Last night I showed this episode to a friend of mine who I am trying to "convert" to the B5 religion /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Anyway, he liked most of the ep, and actually cheered out loud when Sinclair took the decision to support the parents. However, he was pretty disappointed when Sinclair didn't fire Franklin after he performed the operation.
We had a nice argument about this. The way I see it, Sinclair knows Franklin has learned his lesson, plus he recognizes Franklin's decision as a strenght that can be helpful in another situation. My friend argues that the only reason he didn't fire him was because Franklin is in the main credits, and that no sensible commander would keep Franklin after he disobeyed direct orders and created a situation that could have created a major diplomatic incident.
Anyway, I was wondering if any of you has ever thought about this and what your opinion was? Did Sinclair made the "right" choice by not asking Franklin's resignation?
hypatia
Regular
Re: Sinclair\'s last decision
Now that is an excellent question. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
I'd say that in the context of B5, yes. Let's face it folks, B5 was destined to do some drastic stuff. If the major players hadn't had some guts, all of it could not have happened.
I am not talking about the B4 thing or the Shadow war here, necessarily. I mean even simple stuff in the details. Everyone we love broke the rules, right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I'd hate to have had them all in one math class at the same time. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Now that is an excellent question. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
I'd say that in the context of B5, yes. Let's face it folks, B5 was destined to do some drastic stuff. If the major players hadn't had some guts, all of it could not have happened.
I am not talking about the B4 thing or the Shadow war here, necessarily. I mean even simple stuff in the details. Everyone we love broke the rules, right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I'd hate to have had them all in one math class at the same time. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Re: Sinclair\'s last decision
Of course Franklin was right, how can anyone here suggest there could even be a chance those two small-brained, selfish and morally corrupt "parents" were right? The kid wanted to live. period.
As for respecting the parents religion, my opinion is some things just dont deserve respect. Specially when if i remember correctly they acused the b5 channels of representing false beliefs. Nor the father or the mother respected their own child enough to actually ask him what he thought about things, instead they impposed their "you will die if it is written" crap on him, even when it was obvious the kid didnt actually believe in it.
He didnt want to dissapoint his parents (which in my opinion should have been arrested or something), and thats why he didnt ask for the surgery. And, he later said he didnt feel any different and that he was himself.
so, yes, of course Franklin did the right thing. It was Sean´s life, not "Datya" or "Matyas". Who here would want his or her doctor to take the desires of the family before those of the patient?
Of course Franklin was right, how can anyone here suggest there could even be a chance those two small-brained, selfish and morally corrupt "parents" were right? The kid wanted to live. period.
As for respecting the parents religion, my opinion is some things just dont deserve respect. Specially when if i remember correctly they acused the b5 channels of representing false beliefs. Nor the father or the mother respected their own child enough to actually ask him what he thought about things, instead they impposed their "you will die if it is written" crap on him, even when it was obvious the kid didnt actually believe in it.
He didnt want to dissapoint his parents (which in my opinion should have been arrested or something), and thats why he didnt ask for the surgery. And, he later said he didnt feel any different and that he was himself.
so, yes, of course Franklin did the right thing. It was Sean´s life, not "Datya" or "Matyas". Who here would want his or her doctor to take the desires of the family before those of the patient?
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Re: Sinclair\'s last decision
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when it reduces to something like that, you will forgive me for continuing to be atheist and ignorant.
its not about me here, the point is the kid believed he was still the same, not "just a shell" or whatever. and then still the parents killed him. if there are so many obvious flaws, go ahead and point them out for me. im willing to accept them if they are reasonable.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when it reduces to something like that, you will forgive me for continuing to be atheist and ignorant.
its not about me here, the point is the kid believed he was still the same, not "just a shell" or whatever. and then still the parents killed him. if there are so many obvious flaws, go ahead and point them out for me. im willing to accept them if they are reasonable.
Re: Sinclair\'s last decision
Yes, it was Shon's life, but he is just a child, so he cannot make that kind of decision by himself. When I was a kid, I suffered from a lot of fainting spells. When I went to see a specialist about it, he didn't talk to me about the treatment I would get, but to my parents. I didn't have a say. When you're that young, you're parents always make the decisions, not the child.
I believe Shon should have lived, but I don't have the same beliefs that he and his people have. Just because I don't understand and don't agree with their religion does not make it wrong and me right. What says that they are not right in their belief that they will go to hell if they get surgery or the Jehovah's get a blood transfusion? The fact is, we don't know. If the child's parents hadn't found out about the surgery, would Shon have been able to live with the decision he made? I don't think he could have, there would always have been doubt in his mind about his soul's salvation.
Btw, I don't mean to insult you, but as dragon said it is a bit ignorant of you not to respect other people's beliefs. Lack of respect and hatred is what caused all the religious wars and controversies these past one thousand years.
dragon, being atheist does not make you ignorant and have no respect for religion. In fact, your comment on atheism is ignorant of the atheists beliefs, or I should say lack of beliefs. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Yes, it was Shon's life, but he is just a child, so he cannot make that kind of decision by himself. When I was a kid, I suffered from a lot of fainting spells. When I went to see a specialist about it, he didn't talk to me about the treatment I would get, but to my parents. I didn't have a say. When you're that young, you're parents always make the decisions, not the child.
I believe Shon should have lived, but I don't have the same beliefs that he and his people have. Just because I don't understand and don't agree with their religion does not make it wrong and me right. What says that they are not right in their belief that they will go to hell if they get surgery or the Jehovah's get a blood transfusion? The fact is, we don't know. If the child's parents hadn't found out about the surgery, would Shon have been able to live with the decision he made? I don't think he could have, there would always have been doubt in his mind about his soul's salvation.
Btw, I don't mean to insult you, but as dragon said it is a bit ignorant of you not to respect other people's beliefs. Lack of respect and hatred is what caused all the religious wars and controversies these past one thousand years.
dragon, being atheist does not make you ignorant and have no respect for religion. In fact, your comment on atheism is ignorant of the atheists beliefs, or I should say lack of beliefs. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
