 |
 |
Arthur and Ivan and others, Reading the posts concerning Ivan's situation, I wonder whether NPF should even be in the business of direct service. Wouldn't the interests of the total PD effort be better served by acting as an agency to raise money and use that money for research, education, referral and as the law allows political action. As soon as they get involved with direct patient care questions of fairness and self-interest come into play. The likelihood of politics entering into the grant procedures is magnified. I have not joined any of the major PD organizations but because of my care at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's I donate to UPF (which has similar problems in funding I am told) supporting a rather narrow group of institutions. Instead of a coordinated effort against PD we are scattered into a number of groups all with their rather parochial interests. In fact the last time I advocated unification on this LIST I received a call from Larry Hoffmeier. He appeared to be countering my arguments and advocating continuation of parochialism. His arguments had the reverse effect and convinced me more than ever that unification is needed. For now- until Udall is Law I think that the coalition of groups should not be disturbed- YOU ALL ARE DOING A GREAT JOB! But let us use the opportunity to unite as one community. The personality conflicts and institutional differences have got to be put aside so we can rid the world of the effects of this awful disease. Ivan, if his data is even close to being accurate seems entitled to an apology and probably monetary compensation. While NPF appears in the position to play a large part in a new national organization I for one need some reassurance that they "play fair". I assume Larry played his role as counsel to NPF by taking a rigid position that there was no liability rather than admit fault and negotiate a reasonable settlement with Ivan. If true, it is the kind of bullying tactics that puts utility over justice. I have not heard Larry's or the physician's side of the story (and "trial by internet" is not- and I hope never will become- the current legal standard.) As a physician I am very sensitive to the specter of inappropriate legal action but if an action of mine or my employee injured a patient like it appeared Ivan was injured I would want that person compensated. That's what I legitimately pay malpractice premiums for. I have covered 2 separate issues here. They probably should have been 2 postings. But POST-UDALL our number one political issue needs to be unification and NPF is perhaps the major player. I hope we can hear that the issue with Ivan is resolved or at least explained- or it is going to be very hard to support a strong role for them. CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D. Middleton, WI [log in to unmask]