 |
 |
Hilary Blue wrote: > . . . he was not out there representing the PD community. He was > out there to tell his own story, and I think he did that very well - > and as an extra bonus, he has given the PD community some publicity. > No, he didn't tell the whole story - but that is not his story, its > my story and your story, and we have to tell it.If and when he > aligns himself with our community, then he should speak on our > behalf - and then we would have the right to criticize him. But > right now he is out there, on his own, . . . The one community we all belong to is the human community and we have no choice about that. I believe, and perhaps most would agree, that membership confers certain general obligations to help others in need when called upon and when we are able to do so. What this means in particular cases is sometimes clear, sometimes not. Example of a clear case: you see someone badly injured -- you call for the ambulance. I'm not sure how the general obligation applies in the case of celebrities with diseases, and I would be interested to hear some discussion of questions like these: 1) Just to confirm the premise -- is it agreed that there is a general obligation to help others in need when called upon and when we are able to do so? 2) Does being a celebrity or having some other position of social prominence confer upon one any special or increased obligations in this regard, since by being in such a position one is thereby better able to give help? 3) Does just having PD obligate one to help others with the same condition? 4) Then what if one is a celebrity with PD? Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ age 60/dx 1990