MJV emailed me today after rereading my blog post from last December. The blog was written in response to a story about a woman who chose not deal with a melanoma because it would mar her beauty. She eventually died from the cancer and left her husband bereaved. She owed it to her husband to seek treatment, I opined.
This is an excerpt from MJV's email.
"The second question is:
Isn't it odd how some things apply in different ways in different situations?
"This was your blog from
December 2, 2019. It had nothing to do with the CoronaVirus of course,
since it was well before that became a "thing" for all of us.
However the title "Who owns an illness" really caught my eye.
You said: "It is too facile (nice use of the word Al) to answer, 'who owns
an illness?' by simply saying the person in whose body it resides. That would
imply a person owes nothing to anyone but himself/herself." It went
on to discuss the responsibility to "own an illness" and the
compelling interest of those around them, as they are impacted by the illness.
The irresponsibility of protesters protesting quarantine orders is clear to me. Even more serious is the dereliction of duty of governors, such as the one in South Dakota, who refuse to issue 'stay home' orders. The governor, and the protesters, have no way of knowing whose lives are being endangered because enough persons aren't being tested. There is no way of knowing, without either testing no symptoms, who is carrying the virus. Just one percent of Americans have been tested so far. Some of the protesters will rue their participation when they fall ill to the virus. We don't allow persons to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Why allow untested persons to avoid social distancing? The threat they pose is not only to themselves but silent carriers pose threats to others whom they encounter. Whose illness indeed!
Takk for alt,
Al
No comments:
Post a Comment