 |
 |
Mary, Margaret, Janet, Ann Barb and all, I started to write this before reading Barb and Janet's posts. I will comment on Barb's wonderful idea later Mary, I think the AIDS situation is different. First, it is a new disease, second it has several different populations that are at risk, third one of those populations is discriminated against and therefore has political organizations in place, What they had "going for them" is a contagious disease that has the potential of spreading widely in a young population and something that was a "new" puzzle to stimulate young researchers. Putting all of that together they deserved and received significant funding. I would like to thank Mary for the historical summary and the strengths of each group.. As you and Ann Rutherford pointed out multiple organizations is not necessarily bad and diversity and choice can be positive as well as harmful. but they can create confusion. Last week I got a call from my 87 year old mother confused as to what PD group to contribute to after getting multiple solicitations. 15-20 years ago- prior to my diagnosis I was on the Board of our local neighborhood association that chose to eliminate contribution to PD from our local Health Fund Drive because we didn't know who to give it to. From what I have heard there is much in-fighting between organizations and individuals (which certainly can happen within an organization as well as between them) which has endangered the common goal. Art Hirsch's anecdote about the whole attempt at unification was scuttled by a disagreement about letterheads demonstrates the level of pettiness and mistrust. There are roomers that staffs of important pro PD politicians were alienated and attempts to omit significant contributors from the bill signing ceremonies during the Udall bill fight. As I said before I don't question the dedication to the PD cause of the individuals/organizations involved. The charge that they don't want a cure because they will be put out of business is absurd. But I do fear that issues of territory and power (often unconsciously) interfere with the common mutual goals. Margaret- I support the work the alliance is doing. While I think it was as lost opportunity in the process of forming the Alliance to not actively seek joint sponsorship from all the PD groups rather than affiliate with one the Idea of we PWP taking over some of the priority setting and empowering ourselves in the fight against PD is great. I am definitely pro-alliance but also pro Unity. And while I don't know you personally everything I have heard about you and your contributions to the cause has been outstanding. Thank you for your leadership and contributions. Now to Barb and Janet- I think your idea about the letter is great. I question the strategic effectiveness of the letter coming from one organization. My guess is that it will be seen as a threat rather than an olive branch (The person who takes the initiative is perceived as having a step up on everybody else). I suggest the letter be rewritten to come from all of us (like a petition). If you agree we could make it a genuine grass roots movement. We might put it in the form of a challenge to get their acts together with the implicit assumption that anyone perceived as standing in the way of unity will alienate a lot of PWP and caregivers. What do people think? And Terry- thanks for asking such an obvious question and giving us the kick in the pants we needed to revive this issue. I look forward to meeting you. Charlie ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************