Ethan Rhodes
In Mass Effect 3, players can return to the Citadel's Huerta Memorial Hospital after the events of Priority: Palaven to check in on an injured Kaiden or Ashley. Along the way, they will encounter a visitor and a receptionist arguing over the renaming of the hospital. The visitor and the receptionist debate the ethics of bringing back to life President Christopher Huerta of the UNAS, who had previously suffered a stroke and was revived using VI memory storage. This sparks a discussion on the legitimacy of his term in office after the stroke. Players can choose a side in this debate, but the outcome has no significant impact on the game's conclusion. Additionally, players will encounter two doctors with differing opinions on the use of medical supplies, further adding to the moral dilemmas presented in the game.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name origin | "Huerta" means "place where vegetables are planted" in Spanish. |
| Storyline | After the events of Palaven, Shepard can return to the Citadel hospital and talk to either Kaiden or Ashley about their injury. On the way, Shepard runs into a receptionist and a visitor arguing about renaming the hospital. |
| Argument | The receptionist believes it is immoral that President Huerta was "brought back to life" as a VI after suffering a stroke, while the visitor sees nothing wrong with it. |
| Impact of choice | It is unclear if choosing a side has any significant impact on the outcome of the series. |
| Other choices | There are doctors arguing about the selective use of supplies vs treating everyone equally. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Supporting the receptionist or the visitor in the argument over the hospital's name
- Supporting selective use of supplies vs treating everyone the same
- Siding with the civilian and believing the donor was a political rival
- Supporting Kaiden or Ashley
- Supporting the receptionist or visitor in the argument over the president's revival
Supporting the receptionist or the visitor in the argument over the hospital's name
In Mass Effect 3, players can choose to support either the receptionist or the visitor in an argument over the hospital's name. The argument stems from a story on the Cerberus Network's Daily News about the death of North American President Christopher Huerta. President Huerta suffered a stroke that left him legally dead for 90 minutes before his brain functions were transferred to a computer, essentially turning him into a virtual intelligence (VI).
The receptionist takes the stance that it is immoral that the President was "brought back to life" as a VI, while the visitor disagrees and sees nothing wrong with the procedure.
If you choose to support the receptionist, you are effectively agreeing that the procedure performed on President Huerta is unethical and possibly a violation of the individual's rights and humanity. You may share the receptionist's concerns about the implications of this technology, especially in terms of identity, consciousness, and the potential for abuse.
On the other hand, supporting the visitor means you lean towards the view that the procedure is acceptable, especially if it was done with the consent of the individual or their next of kin. You might consider the potential benefits of such technology, including the possibility of extending life and the preservation of an individual's memories, personality, and knowledge.
Ultimately, the choice between supporting the receptionist or the visitor comes down to your own personal beliefs and values. Do you prioritize the ethical implications and potential dangers, or do you focus on the potential benefits and the idea of consent? The impact of your choice on the overall outcome of the game is unclear, but it allows you to role-play your character and shape their moral compass.
This decision, like many others in Mass Effect 3, contributes to the game's immersive nature and encourages players to think critically about complex issues.
Hospitality and Travel: A Career-Focused Degree
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supporting selective use of supplies vs treating everyone the same
In Mass Effect 3, players can make a choice that influences the outcome of the series. After the events of Palaven, Shepard can return to the Citadel hospital and encounter a visitor and a receptionist arguing over the name of the hospital. This is due to a news story about President Christopher Huerta of the UNAS, who was revived using VI memory storage after being legally dead for 90 minutes.
Within the hospital, there is another debate between two doctors. One favours the selective use of medical supplies, while the other believes everyone should be treated equally. Supporting the selective use of supplies could ensure that those with a higher chance of survival or a higher value to the war effort receive the treatment they need. This could result in a more efficient use of resources and potentially increase the chances of victory. On the other hand, treating everyone equally is a more ethical approach that values the lives of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances. This could boost morale and demonstrate a commitment to fairness and equality.
The decision to support selective use of supplies or equal treatment may have consequences for the player. It could impact the player's war asset score, as mentioned by a user who noted a decrease in their score after making a different decision regarding a character on the docks. This suggests that the player's choices can have tangible effects on their resources and overall success in the game.
Ultimately, the choice between supporting selective use of supplies and treating everyone the same is a moral dilemma. It pits pragmatism against ethics, and players must decide which value aligns more closely with their personal beliefs and playstyle. The impact of this decision may be subtle or significant, but it contributes to the overall narrative and outcome of the game.
Hospital Horrors: Katrina's Deadliest Toll
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Siding with the civilian and believing the donor was a political rival
In the Mass Effect universe, players must make choices that will have ramifications on the outcome of the series. One such choice involves siding with either a civilian or a nurse at the Huerta Memorial Hospital. The hospital is named after President Christopher Huerta of the UNAS, who suffered a stroke and was legally dead for 90 minutes before his brain functions were transferred to a computer, turning him into a VI (Virtual Intelligence).
The conversation between the civilian and the nurse revolves around the immoral nature of the President's revival as a VI, with the civilian implying that the anonymous donor who renamed the hospital was a political rival. Siding with the civilian and believing that the donor was a political rival means agreeing with the sentiment that the donor may have been someone like TIM or Udina, who would want a human-named hospital on the Citadel. This choice suggests that the player characters align with the beliefs and values expressed by the civilian character.
The player character's decision to side with the civilian implies a shared skepticism about the ethics of President Huerta's revival and a potential distrust of the political motivations behind the donation and renaming of the hospital. This choice could also indicate a belief that the ends do not always justify the means, especially when it comes to matters of life and death, and the definition of what it means to be human.
Additionally, siding with the civilian adds a layer of complexity to the player's experience, as they navigate the political and ethical landscape of the Mass Effect universe. It can create opportunities for further exploration of the consequences of advanced technology, the impact of political rivalries, and the potential for abuse of power.
The decision to side with the civilian and believe that the donor was a political rival is a reflection of the player's values and preferences, shaping their unique gameplay experience within the Mass Effect series.
Vaccinated in Hospital: Why and How Many?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supporting Kaiden or Ashley
In Mass Effect 3, players can return to the Citadel hospital, now known as Huerta Memorial Hospital, to check in on an injured Kaiden or Ashley. On the way, the player will encounter a receptionist and a visitor arguing about renaming the hospital. The visitor references a news story about the death of North American President Christopher Huerta, who was revived as a VI (a virtual intelligence) after being legally dead for 90 minutes due to a stroke. The receptionist finds this immoral, while the visitor disagrees.
Players must then choose whether to support Kaiden or Ashley, each with their own arguments and consequences. Supporting Kaiden, who favours a selective use of supplies, may lead to certain gameplay outcomes and narrative ramifications. On the other hand, Ashley, who believes everyone should be treated equally, may appeal to players who value fairness and equality.
Choosing a side impacts the player's relationship with the characters and influences the narrative direction. It reflects the player's values and preferences, contributing to the immersive nature of the game. The decision may also have unforeseen consequences, as players discuss the impact on their "war asset score."
Ultimately, the choice between supporting Kaiden or Ashley is a personal one, shaping the player's unique experience within the Mass Effect universe. The presence of such choices enhances the game's replay value, as players may be inclined to revisit the game to explore alternate paths and outcomes.
Healing Broken Ribs: Hospital Treatment Options
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supporting the receptionist or visitor in the argument over the president's revival
In Mass Effect 3, players can choose to support either the receptionist or the visitor in an argument over the president's revival. The argument centres around the ethics of President Christopher Huerta of the UNAS being "brought back to life" as a VI after being legally dead for 90 minutes due to a stroke. The receptionist finds the revival immoral, while the visitor sees nothing wrong with it.
Supporting the receptionist in this argument acknowledges their perspective on the immorality of the president's revival. It is a recognition that the unprecedented nature of this situation warrants concern and further ethical consideration. By siding with the receptionist, players can explore the potential implications and consequences of a leader being revived through artificial means. This choice may also reflect a belief in the importance of clear succession protocols and the potential instability caused by the president's unique circumstances.
On the other hand, supporting the visitor acknowledges the validity of their perspective, which is more accepting of technological advancements in reviving and sustaining life. This choice can be seen as a reflection of a player's trust in the potential benefits of such advancements and their willingness to explore the possibilities they present. It may also suggest a belief in the continuity of the president's original term, regardless of the means by which it is extended.
The decision to support either the receptionist or the visitor ultimately comes down to personal preference and the player's interpretation of the ethical, political, and emotional implications of the president's revival. While there may be in-game consequences to this choice that impact the narrative, the primary significance lies in how it aligns with the player's values and their exploration of the game's themes.
It is worth noting that some players have observed that this choice does not seem to have a significant impact on war assets or the overall narrative arc, but it is one of many choices in Mass Effect 3 that allows players to shape their unique experience within the game's universe.
Tampa General Hospital: Nonprofit or For-Profit?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
This is dependent on your personal preference. The argument is about the morality of the hospital's namesake, President Christopher Huerta, being "brought back to life" as a VI after his death. The visitor argues that there is nothing wrong with it, while the receptionist believes it is immoral.
The hospital may be named after President Christopher Huerta, who was revived using VI memory storage after being brain dead for 90 minutes. It is speculated that a political rival may have anonymously donated money or medical equipment and renamed the hospital to mock him.
It is unclear if there are any consequences for supporting either the visitor or the receptionist. Some players have reported no noticeable differences, while others have speculated that it could potentially impact your war asset score.
