75 comments posted · 4 followers · following 0
The article was about aggressive, expensive treatment being heralded as an example to emulate, and the personal and financial implications of such decisions, and he absolutely did not say she should shut up and die.
Come on, that's total hyperbole.
This isn't specifically about Lisa Adams or Keller's father in law. This is about a public perception that "fighting" terminal illness is somehow a braver or stronger choice. And it's a totally fair discussion, in my opinion.
He wasn't saying Lisa Adams should have "given up", he's saying that's not how it should be framed ("fight" vs "give up") in the first place!
Also, the consequences of the decision can affect the actual costs of healthcare for everyone. Isn't that a topic that we can all talk about?
(GOD I am sorry for not being snarky.)
But his op-ed was primarily about palliative care.
I am sure Lisa Adams is a hero to many, and deservedly so, but every patient facing terminal illness doesn't need to go through the gauntlet of expensive treatment to be considered "strong".
In a country where decisions about life and death can be actively taken over by the state (see Marlise Munoz), not wanting to "fight" for life tooth and nail shouldn't be seen as "weak".
It is also completely fair for any journalist to ask what affect the "warrior" attitude towards treatment has on healthcare costs.
In my opinion.
"Course language"? "Mis-interpretation"?
How do you politely say "homosexuality is like bestiality"?
How do you misinterpret the claim that black people liked being segregated?