Context
During July 1-5, 2015, the National Stuttering Association (NSA) had their 32nd annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland. This particular article discusses the fact that at the conference, the phrase "We are the Cure" was very prevalent, however the association is helping to fund medical research to discover the cause of stuttering in order to find an actual cure. How are people who stutter supposed to respond to these conflicting messages? Are they supposed to embrace who they are, or reject that part of them in order to 'cure' themselves? Is there something wrong with them?
Which person pulls on my heartstrings?
Throughout the course of the article, Kenny Koroll, the chairman of the NSA board made my heart melt for him. He definitely is the most sympathetic character to me. The article details his life and struggles with stuttering. It's heart-wrenching, some of the things he went through as a youth and adult. By talking about his past and how he got to where he is, and the path he took in learning to accept himself, it made me respect him and connect with him on a level that I wouldn't have if he had simply been described as the chairman of the board.
Who didn't I connect with?
Here's where it gets hairy...
There are two groups of people in this article that I had a harder time connecting with emotionally.
Firstly, I kinda hate myself after this. Well...not specifically myself, but anyone who has never stuttered. The article slyly hints at the fact that people who have never stuttered simply don't understand those who have. We make them uncomfortable and make them feel less than. Sometimes cases of that are extreme and people who stutter are bullied. It both breaks my heart and makes me furious.
Secondly, I have very mixed feelings toward the NSA. They have a person on the board like Kenny Koroll telling people to embrace who they are and learning to be comfortable with themselves. Then, at the same time, they tell people who stutter that they have something that they need to be "cured of" in a medical sense.
Article Numero Dos: "Tough Medicine" from The New Yorker
Context
Doctor Vincent T. DeVita Jr. began researching cancer in 1963. Since then, his methods have been unorthodox, but they've always gotten results. He continues to change the modern concept of how doctors are supposed to treat cancer, and has been rebuked because of it, even though he is saving lives. A book written in 2013 by Peter Huber, called "The Cure in the Code" touches on this subject and asks for the FDA to think of drugs less rigorously and use them as tools rather than cures. Are doctors supposed to follow strict guidelines, even if they know an unorthodox approach will save their patient's life?
And the prize for most sympathy engendered from a character goes to.....
Doctor DeVita takes the cake! During the article, DeVita talks about how he tried to save his friend who was dying of prostate cancer. Because of some strict guidelines, DeVita's friend lost the battle to cancer. DeVita firmly believes his death was premature. He claims that because the world of medicine doesn't think outside the box in the way that doctors have in the past when making medicinal discoveries.
Award for least sympathetic?
I was not drawn in the least to any of the doctors that DeVita contacted that wouldn't think of his friend's case in any way that offered him any hope of recovery. In fact, I was not led to feel sympathy toward any doctor in the medical world who believes that there is only one course of action when someone is diagnosed with something. That's not how medicine should work.
No comments:
Post a Comment