Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Illness as a media spectacle
- Janette Moore (10 April 2005)
-
Illness as a media spectacle
- Vito Patella (14 April 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Janette Moore, Child Psychiatrist currently on career break
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, Do we as a society have difficulties with the public display of severe illness? Who should decide what is private or otherwise when it comes to being ill? These were questions I found myself asking after reading the above article. The article discusses the media coverage of the illness and death of Pope John Paul II and in so doing refers to the editor of an Italian magazine expressing his concern that what should have been “an extremely private moment of illness was being turned, at all costs, into a spectacle”. He was referring in particular to the late Pope’s attempts to verbally communicate with the crowd from his apartment window during Easter and called for the Pope’s aides to be “more restrained” in “putting the pontiff’s illness on show”. It appears to be the commonly held belief that Pope John Paul II was actively involved in his role as Pope, including the media coverage of his illness, until near his death. I think it unlikely that his appearances to the public over the Easter period were anything other than self initiated. To therefore suggest that the Pope’s aides had the ability to restrain the show of the Pope’s illness, at this time, seems to me to miss the point – unless of course the suggestion is that the Pope’s aides should have prevented him from appearing publicly. Although at times society may deem it appropriate to not comply with the wishes of an individual, such as when they lack mental capacity or are a risk to themselves or others, I have no reason to believe, from what has been reported in the media, that any of these were relevant to the Pope’s situation at that time. If what is private is, therefore, to be decided by the individual, it seems to me that the Pope’s decision to communicate publicly at Easter and to forego privacy at this time was perfectly acceptable. Certainly his motivation for doing so must have been great at a time when he was so physically unwell. Given his long period of ill health no doubt there were many other opportunities to experience his illness in private. I wonder if perhaps some of the concerns raised in relation to the “tastefulness or the usefulness of showing every stage of the Pope’s illness to the world” might more accurately reflect the personal difficulties that all of us have in confronting terminal illness and death. I do not deny that from the media perspective the sight of the Pope struggling with Parkinson’s disease made for ‘good viewing’. But to suggest that “any other patient in such advanced stages of the disease would retreat and rest” seems to me a generalisation that it would be hard to justify. In his role as Pope, John Paul II was of unique interest to the world press. I suspect, however, given the same media opportunities there may well be a significant number of individuals, in the advanced stages of illness, for one reason or another, who would feel motivated to make use of the publicity. Some may even feel it their duty to publicise a cause in which they believed with conviction. To suggest that everyone with advanced Parkinson's would react the same in seeking “retreat and rest” seems to suggest the author has forgotten that, although perhaps sharing a common pathology, these “patients” are still individuals. I admit that I too found it discomforting viewing to watch the late Pope’s failed attempts to speak on television; his obvious physical ill health frustrating his ability to vocalise. But then not all communication is verbal and as the article attests many people felt the Pope communicated much about “how not to shy away from human suffering” and death at these times, despite or perhaps because of the distress that his obvious physical suffering evoked in onlookers. It seems to me that just because we may find someone’s illness distressing to witness is no reason to deny that person the opportunity for public expression or to insist that they experience their ill health in private. Perhaps if Pope John Paul’s terminal illness was not such a unique “spectacle” and we were more accustomed to the obviously ill playing a public role we would be more accepting generally of the ill and dying in our society. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vito Patella, Consultant Oncologist Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor , As far as the Pope's Last Days are concerned, it should be mandatory for everyone to keep in mind something peculiar to Woityla' s role and spirituality : 1) He always described himself as " Servus Servorum Dei " i.e. at service of humankind in the name of God; 2 ) according to Catholic Doctrine, the duty of the Pope as Christ's Vicar is to serve until his own sacrifice. Eventually, it should be elegant everyone remembers the Pope is a " Spiritual Leader " and Christ's Vicar on Earth. All consideration must be kept in agreement with previous statements. Best Wishes , Vito Patella , MD Competing interests: None declared |
|||