bacta the basics

[sensiblecrow]

We all know that bacta is the go-to healing tool in the Star Wars universe, but even science that's basically magic must have some limits.

What can't bacta fix?

Potential sub-questions:
- How do people deal with conditions that can't be treated by bacta?
- Are there people who can't use bacta at all?
- How has bacta affected medical research and treatment progress?
- Why might someone refuse bacta treatment?

Comments

[21st_century_flapper]

I think one of the limitations of bacta is that there must be species that it doesn't work on. Even if it's able to adapt to and use most species' natural healing abilities, there are limits, seeing how vast the difference in species in the Star Wars universe is. I mean, we have everything from humanoids and reptilians to insectoids and "I don't even know what that is supposed to be". Nothing is that adaptable. So far, we've mostly seen it used on humanoids, so I think it's a safe bet to say that those are the species it works on.

As we know from watching several Skywalkers lose limbs and be sliced up, it doesn't seem to work on large wounds, and it can't regrow limbs, which strengthens the idea that it somehow uses and enhances the body's self-repairing properties, and those only go so far.

I kind of think that bacta doesn't work on bacterial/viral/parasite infections, either. It can probably halt some of the destruction those infections wreak inside the body, so you can probably put someone in a bacta tank to keep them in a coma/stasis and buy yourself and your patient more time, but in the end, it's up to the individual's immune system, and that works via a mechanism that is very different from repairing physical harm.

The question of why someone might refuse bacta treatment is very interesting! I'm sure that, given how vast the Star Wars universe is, there are individuals that refuse treatment. A common reason is probably religion/spirituality - I mean, there are a number of religions right here and now that refuse certain medical treatments because they go against their teachings. There might also be a bit of paranoia surrounding it, since it's basically this miracle treatment whose properties many people don't understand. So who knows what's in there? Maybe the companies that produce bacta put some mind altering/controlling substances in it. Or nanotech that at some point will be activated to turn everyone into mindless zombies. Maybe it's evil sorcery/the Dark Side of the Force. I think you could do some really interesting things with the idea that some people refuse to use bacta for any of those reasons. And of course there's got to be people who are allergic to it...

[filigranka]

it can't regrow limbs, which strengthens the idea that it somehow uses and enhances the body's self-repairing properties, and those only go so far.

Ha, and now I'll have to try to scramble small part of pop-science my humanistic mind managed to understand through the years - but there's actually a strong link between scarification and the inability to regrown limbs and fully regenerate tissue. Like, the process of scarification is what makes regrowing impossible, and trying to both stop it and circumvent it, and then re-storing the cells to the fetal "I can create everything" state, afaik, one of the many veins of medical research and the whole scar-free regeneration one of medicine saint Graal-s. Nonetheless, it seems that once the scarification process starts, it's over. Even in our boring mundane medicine it's avoided/minimised where and when we can.

And so, in regard to bacta, if it enhances the body natural response to the damage - without doing something on its own - then, hmmmm, perhaps even for the species it works for it should work differently every time? So, the species which regrows limbs are able to regrown them a lot faster with bacta, for exemple. But if bacta does something of its own - for example heightens the scarification process - then it could just as well be double-edged sword and quite a few of species with the different/better damage healing process might avoid it in non-critical situations for this very reason? Even humans might prefer other method of healing, then, to avoid extensive scarification.

On the other hand, Luke didn't get much scars - and both his and Anakin's prosthesis works very, very well, especially considered their wounds were cauterised, which, imho, would suggest the highly efficient neural connection and it would be much easier to get something like this with a minimal amount of scars. Sooo, I think I'd lean more to the opinion that bacta doesn't just heightens natural body response, but alters it in a more effective - bad wording... into a different, more effective in some aspects, probably terrible in others - methods. Even if just a little. For example, "stops" the scarring process, which should, we in our boring world theorise, open the possibility/enable the creation of shiny new working cells (of course, bacta would also need to re-ignite the total regeneration ability in the affected area, but stopping scarification is an important first step in doing so). Obviously, in human case, not to the point of regrowing the limbs, but perhaps even a bacta can only enhance things so much. Or perhaps actually avoiding scarring for so long would be unpractical/life-threatening, because if not, then once the cells would be in recreating-the-same mode, why wouldn't they be able to regenerate a limb... Hm. There's probably a faux-scientific explanation possible, but I'm just a poor literary theorist, it eludes me.

I've no idea if EU says something about it, but if it's conveniently silent, I bet bacta shouldn't be able to to cure cancers and auto-immunology diseases. Because if it's based on accelerating cells' healing process - no matter, enhanced or not - it means it kicks cells to divide and create themselves faster, which is the perfect environment for feeding cancers - what's a cancer if not a bunch of very, very quickly growing cells - not the other way round. I think things like these even happened in the medical research history, a time or two. But, of course, if we would be able to turn off its cancerous qualities after the healing... I'm sure somebody is working on it. Of course, using the logic of accelerating natural healing response, one should avoid/be very careful administering bacta in the cases of high fever, and I don't think I saw any SW canon taking this into account, which, I admit, ruins my theory. A little (because we can also take the "not only strengthens, but also enhances/alters to better" healing processes route - I guess it would... almost help the body choose the best way of healing, then, like saying "no, this fever is no good, it'll boil you in a few minutes, lower it". which would open the interesting possibility bacta, in fact, influences the brain mostly and the human brain, enhanced, just do the rest, including igniting the abnormal response in the cells. it should be able to cure the cancer, then. placebo/nocebo effect taken to extreme has no bounds... hm, it would suit a world in which some people can move the mountains with a thought nicely). A pity, it would even work from religious/metaphysical point - if the Force is life, then bacta helping every life, even cancerous cells, could be treated as so many things, the liquefied living Force including. ;)

But, yeah, why would bacta not strenghten the bacteria, too, come to think of it, I've no idea, unless it's connected with the Force and the Force is conscious enough to prefer to heal humans, but somehow I doubt it. ;) I guess the "enhancing a brain's response" covers this, too.

Or, if bacta doesn't work for every species, perhaps it doesn't work on viruses and bacteria, too. perhaps it needs a... certain development level to work (like, a brain XD).

Come to think of it, what would the most pious of the Force followers thought about healing in general, I wonder, when it's so often based on killing other living things. Let the Force decide and avoid all healing techniques? avoid only "unnatural" ones? And the whole bacta discussion you envisioned is so fascinating! (and funny. I can't not see a anti-vaxxers like groups there)

So, imho, in sorta conclusion - bacta probably allows for avoiding scarring and therefore re-opens/ignites fetal abilities to regenerate. The question: why not regenerate a limb, then, is an open one, and I prefer to think that leaving such a big wound open - a gate for diseases - for so long could be potentially lethal. Or that too much bacta indeed heightens the risk of the cancer/other deadly auto-immunology diseases greatly and the risk is too high. Or that it actually powers up the brain, but the brain's abilities have its limit, but this seems the weakest one, considering what we know about brain abilities here. Perhaps the body creates the natural resistance to bacta in prolonged undisturbed exposure and so it's impossible to use if for a time required to regrow a limb - and once you stop bacta treatment, the body starts usual human healing route aka scars. And then it's all over.

As for the influence over medicine and science - tsss, no idea, for some reason it's easier to imagine the influence it would have on the poison/venom/killing evolution/market - obviously, every parasite/germ feeding on humans should try to evolve to either be resistant/neutral to bacta or to be strengthened by it, too. I refuse to think the evolution somehow halted, germs are evolving ultra-fast, as we all see on antibiotics case. Anything which might "want" to kill humans/humanoid species/mammals - either via evolving or bio-design, I'm sure there's a market for such things between SW assassins - should do so, though, so probably most of poisons and venom at this point circumvent the bacta healing, too. So, usage of bacta should absolutely create the whole market, literally and metaphorically (evolution market) for either anti-bacta, bacta-circumstancing (e.g. killing to quickly), bacta-neutralising or even "using bacta to strengthen themselves/further destroy the target's body" species and substances. But the exact mechanism(s) they would use depends on the exact mechanism bacta use - and if even I could create a few above, I'm sure there're dozens possibilities for it. BUT I still think that no matter which mechanism it would be, a... germ or substance which would aim for patient's brain and/or focused on using their own cells and its regenerative and growing abilities against them would be more or less safe. Either on a cancer-basis - bacta just quickens its development - or/and via mimicry, pretending to be body's own cells, so the bacta/bacta-kicked brain would treat them as your own and wouldn't be able to strike against them.

Whiiiich, actually, seems like something more or less aligned with what happened to Brendol - his death and symptoms have a lot of similarities to auto-immunitive illnesses. Messing one or two of waste-cleaning processes (or nutrition and waste processes to have a nice combo, since I expect these bees wanted their water to be full of nutrition substances - oooh, like all these nutri-drinks we're giving to the patients. blah, their taste is terrible) might - in the galaxy far far away, so, with some pathos and licentia poetica - lead to something similar.

[sensiblecrow]

My guess re the scarification is that bacta prevents scarring by allowing the body to produce what's effectively a perfect skin graft - no surgery or chance of rejection involved. Regeneration of bony or cartilage structures seems to be outside of bacta's purview, which would eliminate the possibility of regrowing functional limbs. Skin is really good at reproducing itself, but I'm under the impression (also a humanities/social sciences major lol) that the cells in your wrist don't "know" how to grow complex things like fingers - they just reproduce themselves within the existing structure.

I'm trying so hard to figure out a vaguely scientific sounding reason for bacta not enhancing bacteria and am coming up blank lol. I think maybe it's less that bacta acts on individual cells than it somehow supports a body's immune and healing systems? Maybe it's actually a hyper-efficient fuel for certain cell types or something

Medicine and medical science is such a wild thing in SW, I'm excited to post more questions about health and see what people think. Is there anything you'd be interested in following up on?

[sensiblecrow]

I think it would make sense if it basically augments natural healing abilities in carbon-based life forms. You make a good point about disease - bacta would repair the damage but not actually destroy what's causing the problem. So bacta is actually more an augmentation than a cure.

I love the idea of conspiracy theories around bacta. They'd be pretty believable given the overall power culture in the SW universe.

I wonder if there are people who refuse bacta on moral grounds because it's used as an excuse to hinder medical research? The introduction of bacta to the market must have desperately undermined a lot of medical research institutions, down through local clinics. Your miracle cure? Actually a supporting element of your dystopia

[potboy]

It clearly can't cure the bite of the Parnassos beetle, given that Brendol Hux dissolved in a vat of the stuff. And given all the lost hands it can't regrow bits of your body that have been entirely separated from you

[sensiblecrow]

Good to know about the beetle, that sounds horrifying. Did he dissolve in the poison or in bacta?

[potboy]

He dissolved from the inside out, while submerged in a bacta tank. So the bacta presumably healed the beetle's bite on his skin, but didn't prevent its poison from working on his insides.

[sensiblecrow]

Ooh, yikes. That raises some important questions about if bacta can be used in internal medicine, because that would imply a hard no

[potboy]

Yeah, my assumption has always been that bacta can be used to seal wounds/treat damaged skin but not to treat illnesses or poison, and I'm really not even sure about broken bones. Judging from Brendol's case, if you get a nerve-agent or other parasite or problem inside the barrier of your skin then all the bacta does is seal it in.

[acidwitch]

I'm not sure that's true. It definitely implies that bacta can't be absorbed all the way through the skin into the organs. I mean, did the people who put Brendol in the tank know he was poisoned? If they didn't, then they wouldn't have taken any extra measures.

(should also be noted that Leia went into a bacta tank for a concussion in Bloodline. Not sure where "can fix minor brain things" puts us.)

[eatingcroutons]

There have been several characters in the EU with allergies to bacta - Ton Phanan comes to mind. He had a bunch of cybernetic body parts because he was unable to be treated by typical methods. I think there was also at least one character who died because they were stuck in a bacta tank by people who didn't realise they had an allergy?

On the sociopolitical side of things, there was a lot of interesting stuff around bacta as a limited resource in The Bacta War, but it's been ages since I read the X-Wing books so I only remember the broad strokes...

[sensiblecrow]

It seems like one of the conclusions this thread is coming to is that bacta is actually absurdly limited relative to how it's often treated as a miracle cure.

Bacta tanks freak me out on a visceral level, imagining having an allergic reaction in one is terrifying. There also seems to be a pretty flippant attitude toward medical consent in SW, which makes sense given overall social context but is interesting nonetheless.