S02.E09: Things Which Have Never Yet Been Done

[LoneHaranguer]

 

I mean I'm a little wigged out that she blinded a nun for putting her in a closet as I think that permanent blindness for an act the nun should have gone to jail for is exteme, BUT I can see where Helena's coming from and didn't have a bug problem with what she did to Cult Daddy.

It's very Old Testament, where an eye for an eye is considered being merciful (maybe the prospect of having children made her go a little easier with him than the nun).

[Irishmaple]

I really enjoyed the episode.  I'm glad the cult part is pretty much over because that one dragged for me.  Henrik was seriously creepy about propagating his divine genes, even using his own daughter as surrogate.  Presumably most, if not all, of the children at that compound are his via the different women.  Gracie's mother going to British Columbia for "brood mares" was apt because of the Real Life controversial fundamentalist community in Bountiful there.  She would have no problem finding appropriate girls.  I was surprised that Mark thought Gracie would be fine carrying a child partly fathered by her own father.  She may have been born and raised with that knowledge but I like her for wanting none of it.  I also liked that Mark's personal concern for Gracie overcame his loyalty and belief in her father.  That was a bold step for a true believer like him. 

 

I continue to love Alison.  Her scenes really counter the darkness of some of the other elements of the show for me.  Even sober, nothing rocks her and I enjoyed the fact that Donnie is doing his best to be worthy of his domestic goddess.  He was so proud of himself, showing Alison he'd learned to keep the safety on and threatening Vic by saying he wouldn't shoot him accidentally.

 

Rachel's really growing on me.  At first I didn't care for her iciness and the clinical execution of her sexual encounter with Paul was off-putting, but I'm starting to like her.  I have a soft spot for fictional characters who present all buttoned-down with their crap all figured out only to turn into real people, all flaws and personality, when life starts having its way with them.  What Rachel seems to crave is the love and belonging she experienced as a child.  Now even her phone call to Paul looks different; was his absence noted and "irksome" because she missed having someone around?  I'm hoping Rachel survives this season because I want to get to know her better.

[Sarah-phile]

New quote (but appropriate here I think):

Tony to Sarah and Felix (quoting Sammy): Keep the faith. Paul is on it.

[LeGrandElephant]

I thought this while watching the episode but forgot to post about it till now:

Where are they finding such corrupt DOCTORS? What kind of doctor is willing to sneak into people's houses to examine them - ok, that could be some kind of low level technician taking blood. But now we have a legit surgeon apparently willing to REMOVE AN OVARY from a woman who is TIED UP AND OBJECTING. Where did they find such a doctor? Or in fact many scientist willing to go along with all of those?

I know there were plenty of doctors and scientists willing to help the nazis etc. But in the decades since then, scientific and medical education has changed and placed a great emphasis on ethics. So it is more shocking that doctors and scientists would do this now. I wonder if they will address that at some point?

Also, even if someone would go along with the earlier stuff - analyzing samples taken secretly - they could probably convince themselves no one is a getting hurt. But there's a huge step between that and forcibly operating on a woman who is tied up, conscious, and yelling rationally that she doesn't want the operation.

[Loandbehold]

 

Where are they finding such corrupt DOCTORS?

Maybe they had their fingers crossed when they took the Hippocratic Oath. I also had been thinking that DYAD needs a better HR Department to do better screening so they won't keep hiring these unscrupulous employees for high level positions.

[Athena]

Having read Never Let Me Go, I can understand how the doctors and people at DYAD don't really see a problem with examining the clones. To them, they aren't people with lives. They are an experiment and feelings and ethics don't apply to them. They probably think this is the greater good to science and they don't really see the clones as real people. They also probably get paid a lot and look for Doctors who are shady than most. 

[Ottis]

Having read Never Let Me Go, I can understand how the doctors and people at DYAD don't really see a problem with examining the clones. To them, they aren't people with lives. They are an experiment and feelings and ethics don't apply to them.

 

 

This is something I have wondered about ... why doesn't the show explore it more. Because that viewpoint is certainly possible, and has appeared before (The Island being a recent example). There are *real people,* and there are clones, and they are different. But then I don't know why they even created the clones in the first place. And starting at about the midpoint of this season, I began to get bored. I don't know why any of what we are watching exists. The final reveal of military involvement was a piece, but it came so late. Then again, I forwarded through the clone dancing because it was boring, too.

[LeGrandElephant]

I hated Never Let Me Go, but the general concept that clones would be viewed as chattel and not human is a reasonable plot device to explore and it's been done several times, some more believably than others.

The big problem with that explanation here, besides them not having mentioned it on screen, is that that viewpoint should be completely incompatible with taking orders from a clone - Rachel. It's hard for me to imagine a scientist or doctor who views Sarah as subhuman enough that it's ok to tie her down and do surgery on her against her will, but is also cool with doing so on orders from Rachel - the subhuman clone who's the boss of them? It doesn't really add up.

[Athena]

I hated Never Let Me Go, but the general concept that clones would be viewed as chattel and not human is a reasonable plot device to explore and it's been done several times, some more believably than others.

The big problem with that explanation here, besides them not having mentioned it on screen, is that that viewpoint should be completely incompatible with taking orders from a clone - Rachel. It's hard for me to imagine a scientist or doctor who views Sarah as subhuman enough that it's ok to tie her down and do surgery on her against her will, but is also cool with doing so on orders from Rachel - the subhuman clone who's the boss of them? It doesn't really add up.

Rachel is a boss, but she's just an executive. She's not the head of DYAD and as we can see, Marion is ahead of her on the food chain too. I expect there are others as well. Secondly, Rachel is not exempt from the program. She has a monitor (or did) and while she has informed consent to it, she knows her life isn't her own. It is a strange situation but I don't think it's black and white for them to see her as subhuman and also a poster child for their corporation. Olivier last season revered and fetishized the clones. I don't think it's hard to believe those working for DYAD can't see Rachel as their boss and separate. Aldous did as well.

[possibilities]

I think as long as she's compliant with "the program" and follows orders, they regard her as a sign of how successful their product is "can function as middle management! can pass in the general population! you too can have a cook-maid-mommy-sexdoll-executive tailor made to satisfy your needs!"

 

It's like how the best robot is the one that functions most humanly... but is totally programmable to your whims.

[Athena]

It's like how the best robot is the one that functions most humanly... but is totally programmable to your whims.

 

The similarities with robots also brings up A. I. and Battlestar Galactica. Just like clones, they are designed so well that they are better or just as good as "normal" humans. At the end of the day, people know that no matter how much they look and act human, they aren't the same. It's that one thing that shifts people's ethics and definitions on humanity and life.

 

OB hasn't explored that aspect as much because the clones don't even know why they were created other than to the fact that they wanted "little girls". It'll be fascinating to see

[Wilowy]

I don't see how a clone would be any less human than her proclone? She's identical. Down to the very last DNA strand. A human, not a robot. Not a manufactured construct, regardless of how she came to be. So she wasn't squeezed through a birth canal... she's undeniably and still very much a human being. 

[possibilities]

I agree they're human beings. I think the show agrees, too. But Dyad considers them "product" and property-- thus all the patent talk and other control they exert over them. That's why I was making the comparison to robots-- not because I think of them as robots, but because I think Dyad considers them "manufactured" and treats them as having less than fully human rights.

[Haleth]

Isn't it the manufactured bit of DNA (the one the guy in the lab discovered, I forget his name) that they have the patent on?  Not necessarily the entire genome?  

Edited July 13, 2014 by Haleth

[possibilities]

As far as I can tell, Dyad regards the entire clone as their property, whether that is because it contains a specific bit of paented material, or whether it's because they consider the process of cloning to be proprietary, or whether it's for another reason. i'm not sure it's been specified exactly how they come to this conclusion. I don't think it matters though, because the net effect is that they are treating these people as less than equal citizens.

 

This is typical for genetically modified organisms in the real world, actually.

 

An example is Monsanto with their genetically engineered plants. The farmer must buy the GE seed and a license to plant it. However, the pollen from these plants often blows onto neighboring fields, causing cross-pollination with the crops of other farmers. Monsanto has been suing farmers who had no intention of planting their seed, and in fact some who actively dislike and do not want it, but whose fields are contaminated by wind pollination. There is a very famous case (look up Percy Schmeiser) where Monsanto was alleging theft of patented material and Schmeiser was alleging "trespass" by Monsanto. So, while it may only be part of the plant's DNA that is engineered, the entire plant is considered to be "owned" as a result.

[LeGrandElephant]

I don't see how a clone would be any less human than her proclone? She's identical. Down to the very last DNA strand. A human, not a robot. Not a manufactured construct, regardless of how she came to be. So she wasn't squeezed through a birth canal... she's undeniably and still very much a human being.

In this case, they actually WERE squeezed through a birth canal. We know they implanted the clones in some cases in surrogates and in some cases just random women who went to IVF clinics.

I am aware that clones not being considered human is a standard plot, but of course it's a standard plot for the bad guys to think that, so I'm sure none of us here actually believe it. It's like all the drama a few decades ago about "test tube babies" - now IVF is barely even notable and certainly no one is obsessing about whether the people born that way are real people. Might as well obsess about people born by C-section (isn't that what made Ceasar special for a prophecy back in the day? That he wasn't "born"? But it's super common now.)

I'm just saying I don't buy it as a plot here. I can buy it in books or movies where the premise is that there are lots of clones and all of society views them as subhuman so kids are trained to think that way as they grow up - then it's like slavery in a society where people grow up believing it's normal, so the attitude is plausible. Or, in The Island, they told everyone the clones were not conscious, and kept them secret so people wouldn't know they were normal people, so the public would be ok with treating them differently.

What I don't buy is here in orphan black, in our current society, where the general public doesn't even know human clones exist, that there would be extreme prejudice against them to the point where people would meet an adult human who seems perfectly normal and has been living a normal life and has a mother and father etc and mentally categorize her as not a person. I also don't buy that at least some of the doctors and scientists involved wouldn't have some qualms about it.

I wonder if they should consider going public as a way to stand up to DYAD - but that's a question in every show with aliens or clones or super powers or whatever, and the answer is always that they can't do that because um it would mess up the show. It was a great running joke on Buffy where she'd act like it was this big secret but as the show went on basically everyone in the city knew about vampires and stuff, but they would still act like they had to keep it secret for no apparent reason.

ETA: if they were doing a "good" job choosing scientists and doctors by making sure they would be ok with ethical breaches before they hired them, that could explain it. But we know they hired Scott without any such considerations. So basically it's just a gap that they haven't explained on screen. They could address it various ways but so far they haven't.

re: Monsanto:

But plants are already considered property. Humans aren't - if you create a child the old fashioned way or through IVF, you don't own it, at least not past age 18. And now they are doing things in the real world that could be patentable, like the process of replacing mitochondrial DNA in an egg, but they still won't own the resulting child as a slave. They could argue that the process is patentable and no one else can copy their genetic splicing methods, but they won't have rights to kidnap the resulting people born to parents at the IVF clinic even if they made the embryo in this new fancy way.

(I'm re-reading My Sister's Keeper, which has a vaguely related premise.)

Edited July 13, 2014 by LeGrandElephant

[possibilities]

They brought Scott on board after recommendation from Delphine, I think. But they kept him ignorant of their plans. He didn't know about the monitoring or other shenanigans, and only thought he was trying to help find a cure for the illness. I can accept a combination of ethically compromised people and corporate compartmentalization as an explanation for how that end of it works.

 

I've thought from the beginning that the clones should go public. I thought there would be a lot of sympathy for them, and outrage about mistreatment. At this point, I think the show is mostly just ignoring that because like you say, it would mess up the whole atmosphere of conspiracy and fugitive and underground and danger. It would have been a totally different show, and I personally might have liked it more, to be honest. But they seemed to want to play with the secrecy and the "action/adrenaline" tropes. I think they've kind of tried to give it a little bit of exposition with the clones not wanting to be chased by paparazzi, and just wanting to live their lives quietly. Plus there's the business of not knowing who to trust-- fearing that the government is involved, that this means there would be a worse clamp-down and deeper cover up, and so on. Doing it this way does raise issues about corporate over-reach, shadow governments, and how they do or do not differ from religious cults, so I don't think it's a waste of time. But it does begin to stretch credibility when they don't even argue about whether keeping things secret is a good idea. I think some of them, at least, would think that publicity was the way to go. They could still introduce a famewhore clone who blows cover because they'd LIKE the publicity.Then they'll have some "fugitive clones" and some "above ground" clones. That would introduce a whole other avenue for story.