Article necessityEdit

Is this article really necessary? Federation 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that funeral and death are distinct (although related) topics, in which the latter is required for the former to exist. I don't see how you can have a "child" (sub)topic without the "parent". Certainly, there is overlap which needs to be addressed, but I think both articles have a place on MA. I think the discussion about about suicide vs. euthanasia (see: Talk:Euthanasia) is a useful guide for this matter. Yes/Keep. - Intricated 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the majority of the article is related to funeral rituals and this isn't really a star trek topic. Death is exactly the same on star trek as it is anywhere else. Federation 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So when i die i could be regenerated at the Genesis Planet? for real? -- Captain M.K.B. 00:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there are ritual-based articles linked from the death article, but definitely disagree that the majoirty is about funerals/rituals. I think the goal of this article is to present death as a general topic and provide a simple way for those interested in the details (like rituals) to easily browse to the death-related articles. - Intricated 02:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, I suppose I'm going to be outnumbered here, so I'll just say, please, put the majority of the death ritual stuff under funeral and remove that from the death article. Thanks. Federation 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I think we're missing several revivals in the list of people brought back from the dead. Scotty, McCoy, and Leslie all died in various episodes of TOS ("The Changeling", "Shore Leave", and "Obsession", respectively) and Troi was brought back to life once in TNG (Can't remember which episode; I think it was season 3 or 4.) Are these deaths just not important enough, since they only stayed dead about ten minutes on screen? I'd understand that. 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's necassary - how many redshirts have died in star trek!? Someone dies almost every episode in Trek. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
yeah. THAT's not an exaggeration. Still, I agree. If the list of revivals is shown to be incomplete, let's update it. I will work on it this evening. TribbleFurSuit 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection technologyEdit

In some ST episodes the chief medical officer (or somebody on the ship) is able to revive the dead. In some episodes, they can't (or don't). When or how did resurrection technology develop? Is there a compilation of the various methods of bringing people back to life? (The only one I remember right now uses nanoprobes (VOY: "Mortal Coil").) -- 10:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's less "resurrection technology" and more an extension of what we can do now, with current medical technology - revive someone whose vital signs have just vanished. Obviously, future tech makes it possible to reliably revive people if the doctor knows how, and Seven's one-off nanoprobe cure on Neelix from "Mortal Coil" is an example of Borg advanced tech in that field. CNash 11:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC), I think it's quite hilarious that your link on the word "resurrection" above links to something that has nothing to do with resurrection technology. The joke is, in that episode, Bareil wasn't resurrected at all, he came from the mirror universe in which he din't die. The punchline is that "resurrection technology" doesn't exist, except for the nanoprobe example, and that's why your link didn't do what would be expected in the context presented! HAHAHA! HA HA! HA! I get it, I get it, good one, well done.
Ah, well, of coursse, YOU knew that. Dang. By explaining the heck out of it I've just made it completely unfunny for everyone else. Sorry. I suspect Aspergerism of myself sometimes.
uuuh, if I've got you all wrong, and just in case you weren't trying to be funny, I'll offer an answer to your question: here goes. All the rest of the resurrections in ST besides Neelix's involve alternate timelines, the mirror universe, transporter mishaps, phase-variant universes, symbiont re-hosting, Q's antics, other parallel universes, out-and-out time travel and grandfather paradoxing, and even re-animation of a corpse so that a completely new being can live. While (non-Alpha Quadrant) technology does support that last, I doubt it even counts as "resurrection". 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

May I request one of the Memory Alpha science archivists create an article on this medical procedure? All the successful resurrections you mention (and failed attempts, too) can then link to this new article. Much like Memory wipe. For example, follow-up question: was Neelix the only person who underwent this medical procedure? -- 05:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll call your attention to what was already written:
"All the rest of the resurrections in ST besides Neelix's involve"... not medical procedure(s).
Anyway here's my attempt at satisfying your article request: Borg Voodoo.
I'm not a Memory Alpha science archivist, I just play one on TV. HAND. 20:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A question comes to mind...
If Seven of Nine is able to resurrect Neelix some numerous hours after he had died...why isn't this technique used for everyone who dies on Voyager subsequent to "Mortal Coil"? For that matter, isn't Star Trek: Insurrection, (maybe, I forget...) or certainly Star Trek Nemesis post-Voyager? Why isn't this technology in use throughout Starfleet, and for that matter, Federation civilian medical facilities and beyond? Seems like a hole in the continuity of Trek, not to mention a serious medical ethics violation, to not put nanoprobe technology to use in such ways if it could repair such grave (no pun intended..) damage to a humanoid body. Think of all the red shirts.... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Insurrection takes place years before Voyager got back. Nobody in Nemesis died who could have benefited from the new technique. And I'm not sure that after Neelix anyone else died on Voyager in a way that this technique would have worked. Carey's the only one I can think of who died during the appropriate timeframe, and he was shot through the heart: maybe too great of damage for the nanoprobes to fix. All the nanoprobes were said to have done in Neelix was to restart necrotized cells, not repair physical trauma damage. Do you have specific examples of people who were screwed out of a nanoprobe resurrection? 03:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really. It just strikes me as ironic that "Mortal Coil" features this "here, we can help people...what did Seven say...ninety hours? seventy?...after they die...then, as far as we can tell, the technique is never put into widespread use. By the way...I don't remember exactly what weapon killed Carey, but heat- or radiation-damaged cells, from a medical standpoint, would seem just as "simple" to repair as ones many hours subject to body-wide systemic necrosis and decay. After all, Neelix was hit with a pretty intense energy burst to kill him, wasn't he? -- 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What about cells that are destroyed competely and are just no longer present at all? Would Seven's nanoprobes build Carey a whole new heart? We don't know one way or the other. If you're looking for continuity, just assume that, for whatever reason, it wouldn't have worked for Carey. Make up a reason. We also haven't ever seen any story which reveals what new Delta Quadrant and Borg technology permeate the Federation after Voyager's return, so, you're just imagining the irony. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Um i hate to tell ya, but necrosis is actually physical damage; great physical damage, in fact. It happens when tissue dies while still in/on the body and starts to rot. thats why civil war surgeons were called 'saw-bones' when a soldier was hit in the arm or leg; the tissue necrotized and had to be removed lest the toxins invade the blood stream and kill the person. To tie this in with ST, if the nano-probes could heal/repair necrotized tissue then there really isnt much they 'couldnt' do barring decapitation or disintagration. A lost heart is actually feasible to fix in Star Trek, so long as the victim recieves prompt medical care; put him on a blood pump while a new heart is replicated [it is really nothing more then meat, after all] and then sew him back up. so long as the blood stays moving and oxygenated, he shouldnt die. The problem with nano-probes is that they were never intended for such a use; they were designed to augment and takeover 'healthy' tissue, and only instigate the repair function after the host is a full drone; its probably very risky to use them and not risk being assimilated in the process. - FarFallen, I think the articles on Cordrazine and Cortical stimulator thoroughly answer the original poster's question. For example, in "Man of the People", Beverly Crusher let Troi die from respiratory and renal failure, and returns her to life after thirty minutes using these two treatments. (By the way, notice that the cause of death and resurrection treatment had nothing to do with each other!)
Starfleet doctors are a fickle bunch, selective in which fatalities to revive. Carey, for instance, was left for dead. -- 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Predestined FateEdit

I think it should be mentioned somewhere that Star Trek doesn't consider death to be destined. Meaning that unlike many shows, death can be avoided by changing something in the past. Many shows, religions and philosophies hold that you are fated to die at a specific time or way. Sometimes because of a God's will, or sometimes because of the way the universe works. Star Trek however, says death is mere chance that could've been avoided. This is shown in time travel episodes where a character will be revived because something was changed in the past. Some shows have it so no matter what you do, a character will always die. Meaning that if Picard was to go back to change the death of Tasha Yar, she would die in a transporter accident, and then when he tried to fix that she would die in some other way and so on, so that she would always die no matter what. Not in Star Trek though.

This is something that would make sense to be on an article about death in the Star Trek world. But I'm not a good writer. I think it's notable that Star Trek considers death subject to free will. That there is no master design or way things are meant to happen. So when a crew member dies, and a counselor tries to tell that person's partner that it was meant to be and there was nothing she could've done, it actually wasn't. That person really could've done something different and the person wouldn't have died, whereas we see death in our world as unchangeable and set in stone. – Saphsaph 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - only when it fit the storyline is death avoidable and mainly because it's a main cast member that dies and it just fits the story sometimes a main castmember does die...Jadzia died - sure she was a symbiont but that's irrelevant - Yar did die and she never came back (except in the form of her past self or her child in TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise". Data died in Star Trek Nemesis but his brother survives. This sounds like a lot of speculation rather than based on canon. Especially since the examples I've provided don't show them coming back to life. Sure there are examples that help prove your theory but it wasn't stated as such and there are also examples that go against your theory as well. — Morder 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just meant the fact that it's avoidable in any way is a merit in itself. For example, Harry Kim coming from the future, and telling them to drop out of the slipstream because they all died. There isn't some master universe design, or fate, that predestines anyone's death in Star Trek. Shows that try to send that message have for example Kim telling them to drop out of the stream, only for Voyager to get hit by a meteor and be destroyed. So he tries to tell them about the meteor only to have the borg pop up out of nowhere and destroy them. Then Kim goes through this emotional conclusion that there's nothing he could do and that they were just meant to die and that was their fate. But that's not what has been established by the countless episodes where someone either changes something in the past accidentally and then past crewmates are alive, or they change the past to alter their horrible future. A clear example if 7of9. She dies and voyager takes 20 years to get home. Janeway comes back and is able to change that. The fact that she can change it shows clearly that Trekdom doesn't believe in predestined death. You're reading it wrong. It's not that in your examples they don't come to life. It's that in your examples they CAN come to life through time travel. And that shows the point I'm trying to make that you aren't destined to die at a certain time or way in the Star Trek world. – Saphsaph 08:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I understood you perfectly. The problem is simply that you're making assumptions that are not really based on canon but a few examples that fit your assumption. If death was as easily avoidable that you make it out to be then nobody would die of anything but old age. The entire point you're making also isn't really relevant to this site as we're an encyclopedia of Star Trek and shouldn't speculate something that hasn't been directly answered in an episode or in possible production notes. I could easily turn your statement around to say that Star Trek is nothing but favoritists, bringing back to life, or preventing the death of those they like while ignoring others they didn't like as much...or...that simply time travel is too common without any backlash to changes in the timeline...while I don't discount your idea I just think it's inappropriate for this site since there are many explanations for any number of things we see - but I am not in control and will wait and see what others say as well. — Morder 08:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really that death in the Star Trek world CAN be changed, not that it will or it wont. I don't think anyone can argue that in Star Trek someones death can be changed. And that's notable in itself. is a concept. Star Trek disagrees with the concept, and it has multiple times. Star Trek isn't against the concept of destiny or fate by themselves, just a predestined death. A character can live a whole life, years, decades. Like Twilight (episode). Billions died, many years passed, and it by time travel it CAN be changed. I'm not trying to be complicated, or detailed. It's really a small note that death in the Star Trek world CAN be changed. But either way we're just arguing between outselves, we might as well just wait on more input. – Saphsaph 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about writing an essay or developing some personal original analysis. We don't do that here. If such analysis was presented by an authority (sounds like something Brannon Braga would talk about) or even an academic (like the linguists who used "Darmok" to teach) then we could describe such an independent event in a background note. --TribbleFurSuit 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how analytical it is though. Archer himself said in the episode Unity, "If I've learned anything these past few years, is that the future isn't fixed." There's a clear example.

I thought it was sort of obvious that in Star Trek future and death can be changed. This is the exact opposite of predestination and calvinism. Many of movies, books, and shows deal with the topic. All the episodes where someone changed the past, Nemesis and how Picard's clone did different things, all the episodes with doubles and clones like Will and Tom Riker, Apocrypha too, like "Star Trek: Titan: The Sword of Damocles" Geoffrey Thorne. It isn't original research to say that in Star Trek the future isn't fixed, there's countless quotes from character's like Archer's quote, where they are saying specifically that. If you go to every single one of those episodes with doubles and such you'll see that person's friends saying that they're different, and that the future isn't fixed. I don't see how anyone can say that in Star Trek death can't be changed... It's been the message of an episode countless times.

It's not an essay. It's one simple line like "In Star Trek, death isn't predestined, and can be changed." I just find discussing something before adding it ends up being more cost effective in the long run. – Saphsaph 20:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to this. How do you know that change isn't predestination itself? Predestination implies that everything is already determined and thus someone being brought back to life or death being averted could still be predestination. The universe could have wanted everyone to go through the initial death so that later it could have been averted. Anyway - it doesn't really matter because any likely addition you make would be removed as speculation by others because that's what it is, speculation on your part that something you believe is not predestination while others could believe it is - and that's not encyclopedic. Unless it was stated in canon that death isn't predestined then you shouldn't add it. — Morder 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And let me jump in to point out (before you get the idea) that Archer's statement doesn't count. It's a man's opinion, in-universe. He's not a metaphysician (metaphysicist?) or philosophical authority. --TribbleFurSuit 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch Morder, analyzing the analysis of the analysis... You're beginning to sound like me in my philosophy classes and my teachers hate me for that! I see your point. Until the day someone in canon decides to out right say it, this thought will have to live in the "memorable quotes"! I do however see a lot of notes and such on episodes where by someone saying something, even when the point is obvious, people write down the unsaid point. But wrong doesn't make a wrong right and this just means that those should be fixed. – Saphsaph 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


I am of the opinion that we should remove that stupid quote from Year of Hell Part II where Janeway says "Time's Up." It is one of the worst lines in the series.--Obey the Fist!! 20:52, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Plus, it doesn't really have that much to do with the article. -Angry Future Romulan 20:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Most of those quotes should be removed. I don't think last words are the same thing as quotes on death. --bp 21:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)--bp 21:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. If we have any quotes, they should be on death, not coinciding with death. Characters' last words are more appropriate on their own pages. I removed the following:
"A good interrogator doesn't allow his subject to die; you lose the advantage."
- Gul Dukat (DS9: "The Maquis, Part I")
(more appropriate to torture)

"It's been fun."
- James T. Kirk (Star Trek Generations)

"My God! Was anyone in here?"
"... Aye..."
- Pavel Chekov and Scotty (Star Trek Generations)

"Time's up."
- Kathryn Janeway (VOY: "Year of Hell, Part II")

"I got your gun!"
- James T. Kirk (Star Trek)

"You can all go straight to Hell!"
- Trip (ENT: "These Are the Voyages...")

I also removed this quote because I don't think it's not really notable outside of the episode:
"This man is dead!"
- Nog, 5 minutes after Keevan's death (DS9: "The Magnificent Ferengi")
Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:53, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I forget the episode, but in TNG there was one where this being said something along the lines of "Is it true that you exist and then you don't", if you know the episode and exact quote I feel that it would be good to add -new user May 20th, 2010

Sadler note, mixed POV references Edit

The background note about William Sadler playing "Death" in Bill & Ted is bit of a stretch for this in-universe POV article about death. Also, the Additional references section mixes in-universe and real world POV. --bp 00:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole article is a bit of a mess. And the Sadler bit doesn't belong at all. Wrong show. :) -- sulfur 00:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at clearing up the "Additional References" section but thought that it was TOO much of a mess and let it go. Really, there should just be episodes that significantly involve or dicuss death (such as the VOY episode where they wipe the Doc's memory nodes because they told him to save Harry instead of someone else). There shouldn't be episodes that just have DEATH in the title.--Obey the Fist!! 20:39, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • In 2371, Miles O'Brien died of radiation poisoning after using injections of delta-series radioisotopes to travel forward in time. He had attempted to discover and prevent an attack that would destroy Deep Space 9, and was replaced permenantly by a version of himself from the alternate timeline where the station was destroyed. Although his colleagues were not bothered by this, he felt he was not the same Miles who died. (DS9: "Visionary")

I removed the above from the "Resuscitation" section- I don't really think this example qualifies. The original O'Brien died and was not brought back to life, he was replaced. It would be like replacing a dead character with a clone and saying they were resuscitated.--31dot 00:58, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Removed this also. --Pseudohuman 01:21, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Into Darkness: Kirk not dead Edit

Kirk was never dead, he was only severely injured. Under normal circumstances, his wounds would have been fatal, but the enhanced platelets in Khan's blood helped regenerate the damaged tissue. McCoy has to put him into a cryotube quickly to preserve his brain function. Therefore, Kirk was not revived, because he was not dead just yet. -- 02:33, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Split Resuscitation Edit

This page has essentially two different articles: Death, and also Resuscitation. There is enough canon to support a separate page for the topic of Resuscitation / Resurrection / Reincarnation. There are already a number of examples in the article, and they are mostly different from the examples dealing with Death or with Afterlife. 02:39, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

As there is no consensus reached for almost one year I remove the split tag. Personally I am against a split of this page. Tom (talk) 18:23, March 8, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+