Dear Doctor

After a dozen episodes, the Star Trek series "Enterprise" comes into its own with this amazing episode, written by Maria and Andre Jacquemetton (known for their later work producing the great "Mad Men" series. Dealing with the central issue of how a space exploration might interfere with alien races' development, it's dramatized carefully in a very logical and in fact, emotional fashion, to deliver via Archer's final decision a terrific conclusion.

With an insidiously beautiful and subtle musical score, and central character John Billingsley's voice-over narration and bemused acting style, the episode personalizes theoretical issues. His relationship to his human crewmates, especially the platonic romantic interest well-played by Kelly Waymire, makes the notion about interspecies relations more palpable and personal.

Unlike literary science fiction, where concepts are paramount, movie (and TV) examples in the genre tend to be biased in favor of "action movie" cliches & SPFX. This episode is a thinking person's show in the genre, and packs a wallop.

This episode surrounds discovering a new species who is rapidly dying of a genetic defect, to the point of total extinction in their near future. This species is pre-warp but technologically/industrially advanced.

There is a second species, probably of similar ancestry, who live primitively, where there are somewhat treated inferior by the dominant species. They seem to be immune to the disease that is killing the dominant species.

Once they mentioned that the 2nd species' immunity (and certain dependence/inferiority to the dominant species) I kept anticipating that Dr. Phlox would suggest interspecies mating to potentially weed out this genetic defect. It would solve the problem of the 2nd species being treated like inferior, as well.

Unfortunately that suggestion was never brought up and I guess the writer of the episode just wanted to bring up the "We can't play god" theme where you don't intervene technologically/medically with a less advanced species. Honestly you don't need to intervene medically to eliminate genetic defects - it's called diversification with mating. Telling the dominant species to integrate the other 'inferior' species into their own and interbreed wouldn't be the 'playing god' thing. It's just common sense for anyone who has any comprehension of (genetic) diversity.

I've seen the trope of "a day in the life of... insert main supporting character here" in other series. As with this one, they usually take the form of correspondence being written to an off screen character, recounting the events of the day from that character's perspective.

This, however, was one of the best incarnations of the idea that I've seen. It was interesting to see how well the writers pushed a range of different threads into the doctor's day (or actually a few days, I think), and yet still managed to come up with a coherent story.

The story includes some ethical dilemmas which don't just take the easy, feel good way out, but I won't spoil the episode by going further than that. Better still, it enabled some of the characters to see issues from a different perspective.

The other thing that I enjoyed was the opportunity to let John Billingsley take the lead for the episode. As always Phlox was played calmly and methodically, and yet still managed to put some genuine emotion into the mix.

I've been binge watching Enterprise for the last couple of days and this was probably the best written and interesting episode to date... and it wasn't without competition on that score.

The good thing about Star Trek is its willingness to tackle philosophical concepts and that is what makes this a good episode. Also by combining it with development of the doctor - my favourite character, nonetheless - I think it's the best episode of Enterprise I've seen so far.

I've seen negative reviews on IMDb, perhaps because the reviewers believe the "correct" answer is blatant. However, I would argue that the point is that these concepts should be explored. That the answers are not clear cut and that challenging one's established ideas is good. Each side has merit and the way this is explored is well written and presented convincingly.

This brings this series back to what makes Star Trek great.

With Star Trek you have to take some of the view points with a grain of salt. This episode is good in that it makes you think what is the best decision. Either way, by choosing to do something, or not do something you have made a choice. "Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject." John Stuart Mill. So should we find a cure for cancer? Should we find a cure for MS and other genetic diseases, or let evolution/nature take its course. Was it okay to let small pox wipe out most of the natives in the Americas? If the Europeans had a cure for small pox, should they have withheld it from the natives in the name of evolution. When do we decide to help other species and when do we decide to let nature take its course? This is why this episode is both good and bad. It's difficult to see a doctor go against the Hippocratic oath in refusing help and then rationalizing this behavior to science. Humans may continue to wipe out species due to being a more evolved species but it doesn't make it right.