 |
 |
Dear Helen (at al), If I may again add my "2 cents" on this matter of Ivan airing his problems versus the NPF via this discussion group:: First, I personally have no way of knowing who is right or wrong in Ivan's case, other than to have formed an opinion based on various of his posts & related discussions here in the PD Digest. But my *impression*, from what I've read here, is that Ivan does indeed have a strong case that should be pressed, and that the NPF may well have wronged him and should seek to treat him with respect and to compensate him for what he has gone through. I agree with you that if Ivan is convinced that he has a case, then he *should* press his case against NPF to seek redress. If his accounting as he's posted it is indeed accurate, then I submit that he, as someone with PD who sought help of a PD organization and a prominent PD specialist who both then *allegedly* violated his trust, has every right to push for redress. I also submit that if this alleged injustice truly did strike one PD person in need -- Ivan, in this case -- then the same sort of painful injustice could just as easily befall *any* member of this discussion group (or indeed *any* PWP or caregiver). Consequently, for those who believe that Ivan has a solid case, I submit that he deserves our support, even if at the least that support is only moral support. And, I submit, an important part of that support is to be *vocal* about it, here in the PD Digest, where those statements of support from fellow PWP'ers may tangibly help Ivan attain some justice. Plus, being vocal on this issue may *also* have the positive effect of "serving notice" on any alleged wrongdoers in this case -- or any such "help-related organization" toward which one might wish to turn -- that the PWP community at large will *not* put up with disrespectful or unjust treatment *now* or in the *future*. I do, however, suggest (as I suggested in a posting here some time ago) that Ivan also seek to go the legal route in this matter. It would probably be a nuisance, but the outcome might be a lot more satisfactory than for him to continue to be the recipient of what he alleges is negative treatment by the NPF for some 2 years now. There are private attorneys he might seek -- even if they must be based in Florida, which is NPF's base; and, alternatively, I also suspect that there are governmental regulatory agencies that Ivan could contact and have them seek to intervene on his behalf. Perhaps, too, he might find some assistance via the offices of his Congressional Representative or Senator. Or even, perhaps, the "action reporter" at a local TV station: if they found Ivan's case to be solid, they would probably jump at the chance of doing a story on this. It would be nicer & simpler if NPF & he could instead come to some swift & amicable agreement to resolve this situation to mutual satisfaction. The question, however, is -- to paraphrase Macbeth (...Ahem!...) -- "To be ... settled amicably, or not to be; *that's* the question!". As to Ivan airing his grievance re: NPF here in the PD Digest: I do wish it were done with more attention to brevity. (I also wish that my *own* post were shorter!). However, I submit that in fact Ivan's discussion about his NPF situation is *properly* placed here in that the issue (a) relates to PD, (b) relates to medical care/treatment for a person who has PD, (c) relates to how a major organization in the PD field and a prominent medical professional in the PD field are in actuality behaving in a very specific, very human case -- Ivan's case -- regarding PD treatment. It also strikes me that the open discussion here of such concerns can serve as an important "alert" to others be extremely careful when making difficult arrangements for treatment (etc.). I rest my case. And now I shall fade back into temporary obscurity. -- SJS 10/21/97