Question:
I've read numerous positngs from people stating who they DON'T want to represent
them on the CFSICC. Some folks have written to Dr. Philip Lee stating who they
DON'T want to represent them. Ok, fine. Now who DO you want to represent you? I
suspect Dr. Lee will be asking that question very soon if he hasn't already.
What will our answer be? Will he find us tearing down old bridges without a plan
for building new ones? What do you think his reaction will be?
From now on let's devote our energies to deciding what KIND of a person we want.
What are the qualifications needed to fill the job? Only then can we decide WHO
we want. Assuming someone is selected, will they take the job? Will they be paid
for doing the job? Will they have to pay their own air fare to get to meetings?
How much of a self sacrifice will the job require? It will be tough for any PWC
to meet all of our expectations. Can a PWC remain healthy enough to make it
through the term of office? Do we need alternates?
SHOULD the representative be a PWC? Could a non-PWC have the right perspective?
Would she/he have the drive and spirit to hang in there and to fight to make
things Right? Does being a PWC automatically give a person the needed
communication skills? The right person may have to sit in a meeting for hours,
hold someone's words in short term memory (or on paper if they write fast
enough) while continuing to listen and at the same time prepare a valid
responce. It should be a snap for us PWC's, right?
These are some things to think about. I don't have the answers. Maybe you do.
Let's hear about it!
Answer:
First I don't think its so bad that we're saying only who we don't want.
One thing at a time, and I wouldn't want anyone to think that the reason
we're objecting to Orvalene is that we happen to have someone we think is
better. That impression would undermine the credibility of our arguments.
That said, (says she potentially undermining her argument), I have thought
of someone who might be good. I haven't met him and am throwing his name
out on the basis of just one editorial he wrote. But what an editorial.
Its: Dr. Thomas English who had CFS and wrote one of the most moving
descriptions of the illness I've read. Probably most of you have seen it;
its reproduced in Osler's Web and appears in Chronic Fatigue Syndromw by
David Dawson & Thomas Sabin on page 57. It starts:
"Skepticisim permeates our profession. It is ingrained during medical
training and reinforced by professional experience... Healthy skepticism is
the 'in' attitude for intelligent, discriminating pyhsicians.
But healthy form whom?" ....
Its a superb piece of work, and Dr. English, should he consider filling the
seat on the committee, has several advantages. An MD with CFS!! Who writes
beautifully and communicates clearly. Of course I don't know how he is in
conversation. And I don't know how well or ill he is.
Does anyone know this guy?
I think that there's a book of physicians at the library so if no one knows
him/ or of him I'll make it a mission to find out where he lives etc.
