the articles summarize the controversy around capt. janeway's actions and highlight the ethical issues surrounding them.
in effect, the entire debate boils down to four principal questions. would the decision to disconnect seven of nine from the collective consciousness and to force her to stay on voyager have still been ethical and justified, if:
a) ... the separation had triggered a degenerative neurological disorder that would have been fatal within several weeks or months, or, in the best-case scenario, the neural degradation had been suspended, but she was left incapacitated, in a state of chronic, severe disorientation and suffering?
b) ... the species who assimilated her had not been "artificial" or "constructed", in the sense of using technology to reinforce their bodies and thus arguably having less of a right to claim authenticity, but, rather, "all-organic"?
c)... if the assimilation had permanently altered her physiology, including her nervous system, and, therefore, her core cognitive and perceptual processes, turning her into a member of another species (or a mixed-species hybrid) and was, in full or in part, impossible to reverse?
d) ... if the assimilation had been voluntary and she had agreed to become part of the borg or at least hadn't been opposed to the prospect?
e) ... if the species had not taken any offensive action against other races, were neither aggressive nor expansive, and would only assimilate those who wanted to join?
in effect, our "selfless" is an exploration of these five premises.
disintegrating synaptic pathways amount to an unshakeable argument because they are so thoroughly indifferent to rhetoric. the question is whether one really needs to be this obvious and this radical to get the point across.