Shots In The Dark: A Moment for Elizabeth Edwards

Friday, March 23, 2007

A Moment for Elizabeth Edwards

I find it incredibly sad that Elizabeth Edwards will have to continue her struggle against cancer; for some reason it's affected me even more than such hard news usually would.

Maybe it's the way the Times describes the cancer as "incurable but treatable."

Maybe it's because breast cancer has struck two members of my own family, and the mother of a close friend is fighting it even now.

And maybe part of it is that the Edwards family has always struck me as particularly decent and warm and loving. They just seem like nice people, and I can't help but feel for them.

This is a family that has already endured tragedy. Let us hope they don't have to again.

The Edwardses, by the way, are the 2nd family in this presidential race in which one spouse has a very serious illness; Ann Romney has MS, and how campaigning could affect her health is a real question for the Romneys.

If there is any silver lining here, it is that perhaps these circumstances will bring some added attention to these illnesses, and maybe even introduce elements of humanity and humility into this presidential campaign.....

¶ 9:52 AM

Comments:

Gosh, Richard, his background is that of a ruthless malpractice attorney, and his immediate decision to continue the race seems chilling to me. I would think he might consider this not the time for his presidential bid. Imagine if either Bill or Hillary had made the same decision in the same position. "power mad" would be the description.

# posted by Anonymous : March 23, 2007 5:24 PM

i don't find it chilling at all, i find it self-less. (though i don't know that i would be feeling as generous if i were elizabeth edwards.)

on a purely social level, she will further promote women's health issues and the importance of mammograms. (though it concerns me that she used a lot of hormones to produce those two late-40s children, and those hormones are not always that safe. these are known risks, and since the likelyhood that these children are biologically hers--viable eggs at that age are slim to none--she likely went through a whole battery of procedures to bear them.)

more so, to the point, much as it makes me terribly sad when this happens to any woman, especially one so vibrant, the "greater goal", sadly, is taking back control of the white house. i know this sounds cold and shallow, but every day our young men and women risk their lives to fight for this country... couldn't this be seen as a similar sentiment?

sometimes the needs for the many outweigh the needs for the few. or the one. (i don't mean to trivialize with this quote, but it's spot on.)

# posted by grumpygirl : March 24, 2007 12:33 AM

We can't know the factors that go into such a personal decision; who knows if Elizabeth Edwards herself wanted him to continue? It may not do her any emotional good to have the world grind to a halt around her, only reaffirming that she's sick.

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 24, 2007 7:15 AM

Well....she is sick. She has a serious disease. That said, it is their decision what they want to do. And if she doesnt want to sit around waiting to be symptomatic--she says she feels fine now---whose business is it anyway?

# posted by Anonymous : March 24, 2007 10:59 AM

Richard,

Your entry on this thread is thoughtful and considerate. The contributions of the bloggers are not. While I would rarely endorse your use of censorship, in this case I suggest you delete the previous entries. The world does not need to read these very mean spirited entries commenting on a tragegy on the health of a person and you don't need to allow your blog to be demeaned by publishing these kinds of comments.

Cancer is a very serious illness and I am very sorry that the Edwards have to live with it.

# posted by Anonymous : March 24, 2007 6:00 PM

About Me