Posted by chemist on June 12, 2005, at 19:36:34
In reply to Re: so's consideration of Lou's post » Lou Pilder, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 18:38:04
hello there, chemist here...my comments are delineated by asterisks, below...all the best, chemist
> Lou,
>
> I want to acknowledge that your interest in this matter led me to independently explore information about lupus and the prognosis for people suffering the disease. I learned that the mortality rate for people diagnosed with Lupus has decreased in part because a larger number of people are now diagnosed, due to the recently aquired ability to diagnose less severe forms of the disease. For those suffering more severe forms, the mortality rate has decreased because the disease is sometimes controllable, but is not yet considered curable. But for a certain group of people with the disease, the prognosis for long-term survival remains poor. I believe it is compassionate to recognize that some people must face the expectaton of death, either their own or that of loved ones. Though I hold no opinion about who should say what to the person whose personal experience led to this current discussion, I find that compassion, or "suffering with" a person can involve sharing their burden with a solemn realization of the inevitable, along with perhaps expressing a hope, albeit sometimes only to become adjusted to the futility of hope, for more time to live.
>
> I don't concur with an opinion expressed elsewhere that anyone "earns" a right to discuss difficult aspects of a disease by having the disease, or by having a family member who has the disease. If that is so, we must all face death, so we have all "earned" the right to face the inevitability of death.
>
> Nor do I concur with an opinion that holds only "positive" information about a disease is compassionate in an educational forum. Part of the difficulty of facing a potentially fatal disease is confronting the inevitability of death in some cases.
>
> Having reviewed this thread about how discussion of a sometimes fatal autoimmune disorder can be compassionately discussed at this forum, I have begun to wonder why so few, if any, people suffering from aquired immune difficiency syndrome have presented here for support and education related to the mental difficulties associated with that disease.*** the issue of acquired immune difficiency syndrome is largely identified with a sexually-active, homosexual male population and a group of users of illicit drugs via intraveneous routes; additionally, populations who are not native speakers of english have been at higher risk, yet this was true 20 years ago and less so now.
the very government whose policies have been purported to be ``hypocritical,'' ``pathetic,'' and ``a joke'' in another thread is comprised of elected officials with whom poster ``so'' has repeatedly made clear are those said poster is represented by in the u.s. government.
the u.s. government does not recognize the union of gay couples in the same light of heterosexual couples (not to mention insurance issues, right to deny/affirm life support, and so forth); the u.s. government does not support the medical use of marijuana, much less the implementation of a needle exchange program, nor are drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine currently deemed anything short of schedule I (heroin) and schedule II (methamphetamine, p.o.); and the u.s government - elected by a simple majority of voters of legal voting age, active registration, and incentive to actually vote and thus hardly a majority of the u.s. population in any manner - is publicly standing tall in the three branches on a platform of so-called ``family values'' as espoused by president george w. bush; senate majority leader bill frist; and the supreme court.
the current administration would be acting in a hypocritical manner if the support needed were offered to those who contracted HIV (and, subsequently, AIDS - or not) through homosexual contact (inclusive of sodomy, illegal in many u.s. states); bisexual contact; or needle-sharing.
the u.s. government - ``so's'' electorate, and not mine - is not accurately defined as pathetic - having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity or marked by sorrow or melancholy, according to my Webster's - as much as ``apathetic'' - having or showing little or no feeling or emotion or having little or no interest or concern - as far as the cohort of people infected with and/or suffering from HIV and/or AIDS; and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, nothing short of a sick joke. an offensive and deleterious sick joke, in my estimation.
having one's cake and eating it, too, is not a luxury afforded those who are represented by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the current u.s. govenerment as far as HIV and AIDS is concerned (at least). ***
I am familiar with the battlefield comfort offered in the phrase "everything's going to be alright" spoken to a dying person, but for those with more time to contemplate the reality and inevitability of death, I wonder if an assertion that "everything is going to be alright" is sometimes insufficient to support their needs in the face of likely death.
>
> Further, because these diseases are increasingly controllable, recognition of the risks the diseases pose can assist those suffering from or supporting those with the disease in making intelligent either/or choices about what activities might be worthwhile or safe for them to pursue.
>
> For my part, as my time on Earth becomes shorter, I realize that avoidance of discussion of death might serve those with more time to avoid the topic than it does those of us whose time is approaching. Among those I know who have faced death at an old age or by disease, I recall that they broached the topic of death often as a way of preparing those who have more time to live for the moment when they must confront the departure of a loved one.
poster:chemist
thread:510946
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511740.html