News (Media Awareness Project) - Australia: PUB LTE: Try The Boot On The Other Foot |
Title: | Australia: PUB LTE: Try The Boot On The Other Foot |
Published On: | 1999-05-24 |
Source: | Canberra Times (Australia) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 05:41:40 |
TRY THE BOOT ON THE OTHER FOOT
The distinctions Tom Parsons seeks to draw between the diabetic and the
addict are merely rhetorical (Letters, 17 May).
The gist of Parsons' letter was that addicts choose this misery while
diabetics are victims. It is true that diabetes strikes randomly.
Drug addicts, however, have almost always made their "choice" to try drugs
while in their teens. Are we to condemn them for choices made while they
were mere children?
Perhaps Parsons would have us believe that, once addicted, an addict has a
"choice" about further use. There is no choice involved, certainly nothing
that fits the definition of the word.
Let us suppose that the situations were reversed.
What if Tom Parsons, as a young man, felt there was something deeply wrong
with his body that he didn't understand? He discovers that by manipulating
certain foods, with certain specific sugar contents, he is able to finally
feel "normal".
Let us also suppose that this is illegal. That there is "zero-tolerance" for
this behaviour from powerful non-sufferers. We might even envision Tom
getting into insulin - "the hard stuff". The insulin he takes is the dirty
"street stuff", which pollutes his system, making it ever harder to feel
"normal".
The black-market prices he must pay make holding any kind of a job
impossible; Parsons turns to crime to support his habit. No clean syringes
now. He has searched his soul, but he can't "just say 'no' " to his habit.
His own body will not allow it.
Now, since he has taken up the pen, he is known as the new evil . . . the
Legaliser. He argues that doctors should treat diabetics, that science is
the answer. He is drowned out by the hordes whipped into a frenzy by
politicians campaigning on a "get tough on diabetics!" angle, who want him
out of the society completely. He knows in his heart that diabetics could
somehow, some day, be productive and valuable members of society, if only
this demonisation of diabetics would end.
Tom has somehow survived into middle age but he sees a whole new crop of
young diabetics dying and still the same old idiots are in charge.
DAVE MICHON Spooner, Wisconsin, United States of America
The distinctions Tom Parsons seeks to draw between the diabetic and the
addict are merely rhetorical (Letters, 17 May).
The gist of Parsons' letter was that addicts choose this misery while
diabetics are victims. It is true that diabetes strikes randomly.
Drug addicts, however, have almost always made their "choice" to try drugs
while in their teens. Are we to condemn them for choices made while they
were mere children?
Perhaps Parsons would have us believe that, once addicted, an addict has a
"choice" about further use. There is no choice involved, certainly nothing
that fits the definition of the word.
Let us suppose that the situations were reversed.
What if Tom Parsons, as a young man, felt there was something deeply wrong
with his body that he didn't understand? He discovers that by manipulating
certain foods, with certain specific sugar contents, he is able to finally
feel "normal".
Let us also suppose that this is illegal. That there is "zero-tolerance" for
this behaviour from powerful non-sufferers. We might even envision Tom
getting into insulin - "the hard stuff". The insulin he takes is the dirty
"street stuff", which pollutes his system, making it ever harder to feel
"normal".
The black-market prices he must pay make holding any kind of a job
impossible; Parsons turns to crime to support his habit. No clean syringes
now. He has searched his soul, but he can't "just say 'no' " to his habit.
His own body will not allow it.
Now, since he has taken up the pen, he is known as the new evil . . . the
Legaliser. He argues that doctors should treat diabetics, that science is
the answer. He is drowned out by the hordes whipped into a frenzy by
politicians campaigning on a "get tough on diabetics!" angle, who want him
out of the society completely. He knows in his heart that diabetics could
somehow, some day, be productive and valuable members of society, if only
this demonisation of diabetics would end.
Tom has somehow survived into middle age but he sees a whole new crop of
young diabetics dying and still the same old idiots are in charge.
DAVE MICHON Spooner, Wisconsin, United States of America
Member Comments |
No member comments available...