Krebsforum Lazarus

Bitte loggen sie sich ein oder registrieren sie sich.

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge
Erweiterte Suche  

Neuigkeiten:

.
[*quote*]
--------------------------------------------
Radiologia & Salud @RX_SALUD 27.4.2017



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-Z97-vXYAAAVVK.jpg

#Radiologìa #Veterinaria en #Caballos 🐎

#Veterinary #Radiology in #Horses 🐴
--------------------------------------------
[*/quote*]

more:
https://twitter.com/aribertdeckers/status/861986161555800065

Mäuse haben es leichter ... :-)

Autor Thema: Darf man über seinen Krebs und den Tod öffentlich schreiben?  (Gelesen 1829 mal)

Glückspilz

  • Globaler Moderator
  • Held Mitglied
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 848

Darf man über seinen Krebs und den Tod öffentlich schreiben?

Egal, was man tut, es gibt immer mindestens Einen, der daran etwas auszusetzen hat. In einer Welt, in der Zeitungen, Radio und Fernsehen wie Aasgeier sich auf alles stürzen, was Leser/Zuschauer bringt, sind Tagebücher von Sterbenden noch nie ein Tabu gewesen, im Gegenteil.

Allerdings sind solche Tagebücher nicht immer frei von Tadel. Man DARF also durchaus so ein Tagebuch auch kritisieren. Mit Internet kann sich das über die Kontinente hinweg exponentiell hochschaukeln.

Bevor diese Texte verschwinden, rette ich einen der "New York Times" als Ganzes.  Der Artikel des "Guardian ist verschwunden, aber Kommentare sind noch da. Vom Guardian übernehme ich die von der Redaktion als wesentlich ausgewählten Kommentare.


03:06 PM - January 13, 2014
"Too many feelings
The Guardian pulls Emma Keller’s controversial post critiquing a cancer patient’s tweeting a few hours after The New York Times published a similar piece by her husband"

By Alexis Sobel Fitts
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_guardian_pulls_emma_keller.php

January 13, 2014, 4:09 pm
"Readers Lash Out About Bill Keller’s Column on a Woman With Cancer"
By MARGARET SULLIVAN
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/readers-lash-out-about-bill-kellers-column-on-a-woman-with-cancer/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/business/media/guardian-deletes-column-about-a-cancer-patient.html

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Deletes Column About a Cancer Patient

By RAVI SOMAIYAJAN. 13, 2014

The British newspaper The Guardian on Monday removed from its website a controversial column by one of its writers that discussed a woman’s use of Twitter to chronicle her struggle with cancer. In removing it, The Guardian cited an investigation into the column.

The writer, Emma Gilbey Keller, had focused on the Twitter account and blog of Lisa Bonchek Adams, a mother of three who is being treated for stage four breast cancer. Ms. Adams has been writing about it regularly, saying that she wanted to do “as much as I can for as long as I can.”

The Guardian removed the column, published last Wednesday, on the day a column on the same topic by Ms. Keller’s husband, Bill Keller, was published in The New York Times, prompting a resurgence in the controversy.

Ms. Keller questioned Ms. Adams’s documenting her illness in a public forum. “Are her tweets a grim equivalent of deathbed selfies, one step further than funeral selfies?” Ms. Keller wrote, referring to self-taken images.

A wave of online criticism developed from Ms. Adams’s followers and others, accusing Ms. Keller of mischaracterizing Ms. Adams. Ms. Keller was also criticized for publishing private correspondence with Ms. Adams as part of her column.

Ms. Adams, who lives in Connecticut and is receiving treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, said on Twitter that Ms. Keller’s column contained inaccuracies. “I’m quite perplexed and concerned,” she wrote. “Misses everything I’m trying to do. Stunned. Saddened.”

The column by Mr. Keller, the former executive editor of The Times, tried to incorporate Ms. Adams’s situation into a broader discussion about end-of-life care. By Monday afternoon, with the issue generating debate online, Margaret Sullivan, The Times’s public editor, weighed in with her own analysis. She wrote that the two columns could be seen by critics as “a sort of double-pronged slam, greater together than the sum of their parts.” After weighing positive and negative reader response, and engaging in a dialogue with Mr. Keller, she concluded that “there are issues here of tone and sensitivity.”

Mr. Keller told Ms. Sullivan that “some readers have misread my point, and some — the most vociferous — seem to believe that anything short of an unqualified ‘right on, Lisa!’ is inhumane or sacrilegious.” Neither his column, nor his wife’s, he said, “was a ‘slam’ of Lisa Adams or her choices.”

In an email, Mr. Keller expanded on comments he made to Ms. Sullivan. “The most perverse aspect — of many — is the idea that Emma, who endured her own double mastectomy in 2012, is somehow lacking in empathy for victims of breast cancer.”

He said it was sad that two serious debates — “living with a terminal disease in our hyper-transparent world” and “patients’ choice of response to terminal illness” were being “drowned out by a tide of political correctness.”

Ms. Keller declined to comment.

The Guardian said only that it had removed her column while conducting an investigation. But a person at The Guardian with knowledge of the process said that the column’s tone and substance had been under review since it was published, and that its removal was not related to the publication of Mr. Keller’s column on Monday.

Bill Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia Journalism School, questioned The Guardian’s decision to remove the column, saying on Twitter that it had “set a worrisome precedent.”

Ms. Adams did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday. “I’m in middle of intense radiation sessions this week,” she wrote on Twitter late Monday. “I’m not doing interviews. Or even thinking about them. I am focusing on treatment.”

Earlier in the day Ms. Adams said that there was a bright side to the debate over the Kellers’ columns. “One thing so great about today,” she wrote. “I am alive to see a diff[erence] I could make in discussion of metastatic cancer. And will be here for more.”
 

A version of this article appears in print on January 14, 2014, on page B7 of the New York edition with the headline: "Guardian Deletes Column About a Cancer Patient."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RR3Yeu8qHsEJ:www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/lisa-adams-tweeting-cancer-ethics+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Leider zu spät...


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/lisa-adams-tweeting-cancer-ethics

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget funeral selfies. What are the ethics of tweeting a terminal illness?
theguardian.com, Wednesday 8 January 2014 18.40 GMT

Jump to comments (206)

This post has been removed pending investigation.



These comments have been chosen by Guardian staff because they contribute to the debate.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Wolf

08 January 2014 10:01pm
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Recommend
76

As a blogger who shares my own journey with a non-fatal but extremely debilitating illness that has left me largely housebound, if not bedbound (ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, Lyme Disease & more), I can vouch for the many benefits that come from doing so - many more than you might think. I've never read her blog or tweets, but I'll venture a guess at some of what she is "getting out of it," since that seems perplexing to some:

1. This keeps real friends and family updated on her condition, without the need for endless, exhausting, seperate messages or visits, which is likely why she started tweeting & blogging about her journey in the first place.

2. For every illness, there are online communities of bloggers who support each other, and when you are very ill, only someone who has been where you are can truly understand what you are going through. That understanding & support is vital. These friendships can mean the world to someone living in misery & pain. So she is essentially "holding hands" with the fellow patients she has met through her blog & twitter as she walks this terrible path - she is not doing it alone.

3. She is also educating many thousands of people about what life with this type of cancer is like. We don't like to see that - we'd rather such things stay hidden. But by telling her story, she is opening the hearts & minds of others. Along the way, medical personnel and fellow patients will be being educated as to exactly what the patient's point of view is on treatments & care, pain control, etc. And I'm quite sure her experience IS being watched by various member of the medical profession, and she knows it. Fellow patients will be picking up tips on what to do/not do.

In many ways, #3 may be the most important, because it gives her a sense of purpose - a reason to go on, when all else is pain & suffering. It gives her a reason not to give up, as does the support of her many friends and followers.

Is it "ghoulish" to be obsessed with reading it? It shows you have compassion - you care about this total stranger. That's a good thing.
That's my humble opinion. 
View full discussion
Report
 Share this comment on Twitter
 Share this comment on Facebook
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iamjen

09 January 2014 12:18am
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Recommend
115

The author of this article seems to question whether Lisa is unreasonable in her expectation of privacy in her hospital room since "she's living out loud online." Well, since the author writes her articles "out loud online" and solicits online comments, can I just show up at the author's personal residence or her office and tell her that I think her article is not only fraught with unjust inaccuracies and poor editorial content, but is also an unfortunate misrepresentation of Mrs. Adams' purpose behind her tweets and writing? The obvious answer is "No."

Further, Lisa is not "dying out loud." Rather, she is bringing light to social stigmas regarding mortality and terminal illness, dispelling myths regarding metastatic breast cancer, attempting to bring awareness to the lack of funding dedicated to metastatic cancer, and helping people cope with their own illnesses and tragic life events. And so much more. She is an incredibly beautiful and gracious teacher. "Truth" is often ugly and uncomfortable, and her dedication to tell the truth about her experience and tragic experiences in general is commendable. Is it everyone's cup of tea? Of course not. But, her blog and twitter are not the same type of public forum as a street preacher on a busy downtown corner. Lisa tweets and blogs are only accessible when someone on the internet proactively seeks them out. As for me, I will continue to follow Lisa's online life; she is an inspiration and an incredible human being.
View full discussion
Report
 Share this comment on Twitter
 Share this comment on Facebook
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huizhe_in_Taiwan

09 January 2014 12:38am
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Recommend
77

My late wife died of breast cancer that metastasized to her liver. I was her primary caregiver for 9 months. Therefore, after reading the tweets in the article, I would definitely not be interested in reading any more about Lisa Adams' pain. It's not that I have no sympathy or compassion for her, but there's nothing new or even interesting (for me). Others may disagree because they haven't been involved in the long cancer death of a family member or friend, or because they're voyeurs who have nothing better to do with their time than attempting to vicariously understand, because of what she says, what it means and how it feels to die of cancer. I can't say that living for 9 months with my dying wife's comments about her pains and pleasures will make a death from cancer any easier for me: I'll know that only if that is how I exit life. But I have no problem with Lisa Adams' desire to share her pain. If it makes her death better for her -- and I'm sure it does -- then I'm all in favor of her tweeting about it. I don't receive her tweets, so I don't have to read them.

Is this a responsible use of social media? What an absurd question! Why is it necessary for you, Ms. Keller, or anyone else, for that matter, to be so moralistic about it? The social media are abused millions of times daily by people out for revenge or trying to be funny when they're merely being obnoxiously racist, sexist, or some other kind of -ist. Lisa Adams has a great reason for making a public declaration of her pain, and she's not using a loudspeaker truck to do it.

The social media abusers are people who, for example, without asking permission, post pictures of their friends and strangers who'd rather not have their faces plastered all over the Internet. There are myriad ways to abuse the social media, and anyone who uses social media knows what they are, so I needn't list them.

Moralists are fundamentally boring and overtly dictatorial. I think that it's not possible for human beings to refrain from being judgmental. All the higher life forms, most of the lower life forms, and probably all life forms (I don't know for certain) are judgmental by nature: they have to judge whether they're in danger or safe and somehow adapt to changes in their environment, but only humans offer the deceitful explanation that their judgments are based on some universal and, usually, divine code that only they and their fellow ideologues believe in), we don't have to actually give voice to our judgments, nor do we have to insist that others share our moral prejudices. If you don't like Lisa Adams' tweets, then ignore them instead of stirring up a tempest in a teapot.

Lisa Adams is obviously hurting, but she's not hurting anyone else. Leave her alone and allow her the dignity of dying as she wishes to die rather than in a manner that you and others who would question her ethics believe, without any evidence to support your belief, is somehow more appropriate. Is there really a proper way to die?
View full discussion
Report
 Share this comment on Twitter
 Share this comment on Facebook
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian contributor
emmagkeller

09 January 2014 4:21pm
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Recommend
11

Orpheus, first of all, Lisa has been on our website as a participant on a live chat. If you scroll through to the end you'll see her participation. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/04/dna-sequencing-health-live-chat
This was her comment that captured my attention and kept me in touch with her.
"It's exciting to have access to the cutting edge drugs like I am currently on, but also a great leap from mice trials to the variation in patients. Those like me in these trials can only hope we are getting ourselves some time but realize that the big leaps in progress will likely be after we are gone. But that is part of the contribution we hope to make."
The only thing of hers I quoted directly was a DM she sent me before the new year. You could argue that that was private. I didn't tell her I was doing this piece because it's a Comment (an op-ed) not a reported piece. In addition to swapping tweets, we have exchanged emails. I have not quoted from those, though the most recent one I got from her was 2 days ago - before the piece was published.
View full discussion
Report
 Share this comment on Twitter
 Share this comment on Facebook
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian contributor
emmagkeller

09 January 2014 4:46pm
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Recommend
173

First of all I want to say that I am so sorry you have had to deal with so much breast cancer. It’s a terrible disease. When you say you have known Lisa, do you mean actually known her in person or via the internet and her posts? I can’t quite figure that out from your comment. A lot of people have been posting saying they know her from her writing, but is that the same thing as really being someone’s friend? Maybe it is today. That’s one of my questions. Anyway, whatever the circumstances of your relationship with her, she has clearly been a source of inspiration to you – you’ve made that very clear. And that’s genuinely wonderful.
You say, “You have created a portal for strangers to make completely uneducated and uninformed comments and judgments.”
I would argue that is what twitter does. And therein lies the risk of sharing so much extremely personal information on twitter. Lisa’s blogs are completely different to her tweets. I think you’d agree with me there?
I would like to take issue with your statement that I have some kind of vendetta here. I do not. I am just trying to understand a new landscape of communication and connection that exists at the end of a person’s life.
You say, “It's not pretty. It's not fun. It's the ugly and honest truth and many thousands who read her work are grateful for her breadth of knowledge and her generous willingness to open up and talk about it.” I am glad Lisa is such a valuable resource for you. You have certainly helped me understand what her appeal is to a number of her readers. I can only end by saying that I wish your daughter all the best, and wish you all the best as a mother going through this with her daughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
« Letzte Änderung: 14. Januar 2014, 16:43:47 von Glückspilz »
Gespeichert
Würde ich von Licht leben,
müßte ich grün sein.