Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 8:31:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 7:03:26
> Lou, I am asking in the name of compassion and charity that we do not dwell on the negatives in any illness we are not personally facing either personally or in a loved one, and are discussing it in that context. The people who are facing it have doctors, and ready access to the internet. In this case, as with diabetes which I have more comfort discussing as I actually have it, the statistics are overwhelmingly positive. But sometimes it's easy to overlook the statistics and dwell on the negatives, especially if it is directly in front of us in a place we probably weren't expecting it.
>
> We could choose to think about worst case scenarios or we could choose to discuss the overwhelmingly positive numbers of people who live a full lifespan with this condition.
>
> You may of course choose to do either.
>
> I think dwelling on the worst case scenarios is a right earned by those who are actually experiencing something.
>
> So that if I, for example, want to moan about the possibilities of diabetes many of which I know very well, it would be venting and sharing of my fears. But if you were to tell me that many people die of complications of diabetes, especially not in the context of trying to intervene in what you see is self destructive behavior... Well, would you wish to do that to me if I were trying to focus on the many people who do not?
>
> Again, it is your choice.
>
> However, I will not engage in further discussion about it with you on board in any but the most positive terms, because further discussion with you has already brought up another link to fatalities, and I do not wish to see that continue. You can continue it without me, of course. But if you want me to discuss this matter, you can email me.Dinah,
You wrote in your post above that you would not discuss{it} with me. Is the {it} only about lupus in referrence to your preference?
If so, then the following is not about your preferrence as to what you want to read or discuss, but as to what you have written here concerning me.
You wrote,[...in the name of compassion and charity thaat we do not dwell on the negatives in any illness...].
Are you saying that {I} am {dwelling} on what you say? It is not my intention to dwell on what you say, for I have presented links in response to your post and other's posts. Are you saying that I am not a commpassionate person, for any reason, including because of my administrative request and my posting of links in response to what you and others have written?
The original thread about this is about Dr.Hsiung's code guidline that states,[...Please,...don't joke about death...]. he original poster wrote that the father was given 3-6 months and that there is a diagnosis of lupus.
Both of those statement IMO have the {potential} to mean that 1)that the father will die in 3-6 months and,2), that lupus has the potential to be fatal and there were statements that I think could have the potential to be [...joking about death...] and I had the concern to know if it is acceptable or not in relation to that guidline here for those statements.
I do not understand why those statements are not addressed as falling in the catagory of [...Please,...don't joke about death...]. There are statements by you here that IMO have the potential to lead others to think that lupus does not have the potential to be fatal for you have written that [...My main concern...linking a chronic and... controllable condition with death...].[...quit that...]. Could you rephrase that so that you include that lupus has the potential to be fatal so that the reader could have the opportunity to know from what you wrote that there is the potential for lupus to be fatal?
My concern is that there is the potential for lupus to be fatal and that goes to the administrative concern of mine that the guidline could or could not make the statements in question acceptable. But even without that, the statement ,[...father given 3-6 months...] is there and i think that unless there is a disclaimer to the contrary, that the statement has the potential to mean that the father will die in 3-6 months. I can not see anythinh humorous about that and I can not understand Dr. Hsiung's postion on this. If they are acceptable, then what does the guidline by Dr. Hsiung mean?
I wonder what would have happened if Dr. Hsiung addressed the statements in question that I think have the potential to be joking about death as being unacceptable.
Some one wrote, [...,but rather application and means of conforming with a guidline at this site that reads, "Please,...don't joke about death."...].
I feel that since my posts are on the administrrative board that they deserve the same consideration as any other administartive discussion and that others, not write things that in any way have the potential to have others have the potential to think that what I am writing is in some way not to be written here. You write [...a right earned by those ...experiancing....]. Are you saying that {only} if I had lupus that it would be OK that I could post the links that were in response to what you and others wrote? If so, then could that mean that others could write posts of the nature that you and others here have in relation to our discussion and I would in some way , doing something unacceptable to reply to them with links that could show clarification to what they wrote, even to me?
I am requesting to you that you write a reply to me about my questions to you about your use of "dwell" and "compasionate" in the opening of your post to me for I feel that I need more infomation from you about what you mean in order to make a determination as to if your statements have the potential for others to have the potential to think that the statements could accuse me or put me down.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:510946
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511393.html