Schumacher ski accident, coma and recovery

[lotus7]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28258.html

[xpensive]

---
That's the problem.

The problem is the lack of information leading to speculations by various "specialists" through AMuS.

It is difficult to liberate oneself from the feeling that this is all about preserving the myth, and yes, I'm a cynic.

[bhall]

I can see that side of it, too. All I can say is that my view of the matter stems from an individual belief that public figures are entitled to the kind of personal privacy that once allowed Jack Kennedy to have multiple extramarital affairs, and J. Edgar Hoover to dress up like a woman, without nary a mention of it in the mainstream press. Right or wrong, some --- just isn't our business, because it doesn't have anything at all to do with us.

I think that's doubly true of individuals, like Michael Schumacher, who have no responsibilities whatsoever to the public good, and I think it's triply true of those, like his family, whose notoriety was born solely from their association with someone famous.

[xpensive]

In all honesty, I'm not so certain that allowing JFK and J Edgar to go on with their lifestyles was such a good thing,
when I believe that people in public office owe a little more than that to the taxpayers and voters.

Anyways, MS has a huge fanbase, all obviously concerned. If nothing else, I think the family "owes" information to them.

[bhall]

And that's where we disagree, which is fair enough.

[smr]

Read today that he is now nodding and keeping his eyes open for long periods...

[siskue2005]

yes great news indeed

[aral]

Read today that he is now nodding and keeping his eyes open for long periods...

Source? Rumours are never helpful.

[xpensive]

I cannot shake this disturbing feeling that there are certain business-interest at work here, to keep the legend "alive"?

[smr]

Read today that he is now nodding and keeping his eyes open for long periods...

Source? Rumours are never helpful.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ep-3714506

Michael Schumacher is able to nod and is keeping his eyes open for "long periods," it has been claimed.

The 45-year-old F1 legend communicated to his family and doctors during his transfer from an intensive care ward in a French hospital to his rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland.

During the 120 mile trip Schumacher remained mute.

He has many months, perhaps years, of therapy ahead of him but his life appears to now be out of danger.

Dr Richard Franckowiak, director of the neuroscience unit at the Lausanne clinic said:" "During the 120-mile road journey from Grenoble to Lausanne, he kept his eyes open for long periods."

Dr Franckowiak, said the seven-times world champion's transfer went "very, very well".
............................

[Cam]

All I can say is that my view of the matter stems from an individual belief....

Q: Do fans have a right or expectation to be kept informed of public figures?

Pro:
• evidence of global news interest
• evidence of search engine interest
• evidence of laws that protect family, not public figure
• evidence of previous examples
• evidence of profiting from media exposure
• evidence that public figures use media for their self interest
• evidence of supporting news articles from media experts
• evidence of fans base and their opinions

Con:
• personal belief
• animated gif of small girl

Yep. It certainly seems as though the minority morale elite control the votes..... and that's what I've learned from this:

Personal belief + no evidence &/or someone else's photo = votes

I'm off to get some stock image accounts - so hopefully I can finally fit in here.

[bhall]

Do you honestly think that's what this is about?

Nothing you have said, or can possibly say, negates the fact that everyone has an inalienable right to keep medical matters private if they so choose. This has been a fact of life since antiquity. It's even addressed in the Hippocratic Oath.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, nor does it matter how anyone else feels. Just as it doesn't matter what happened in the past, nor does it matter what may happen in the future. Nothing changes the immutable reality that no one is entitled to that which is ungranted to them.

To fervently challenge this convention simply because you've seen someone on TV a bunch of times is to take on the appearance of a spoiled child who's repeatedly screaming, "I want it now," out of a lack of the maturity that enables most adults to see beyond their own self-interest.

[theblackangus]

Do you honestly think that's what this is about?

Nothing you have said, or can possibly say, negates the fact that everyone has an inalienable right to keep medical matters private if they so choose. This has been a fact of life since antiquity. It's even addressed in the Hippocratic Oath.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, nor does it matter how anyone else feels. Just as it doesn't matter what happened in the past, nor does it matter what may happen in the future. Nothing changes the immutable reality that no one is entitled to that which is ungranted to them.

To fervently challenge this convention simply because you've seen someone on TV a bunch of times is to take on the appearance of a spoiled child who's repeatedly screaming, "I want it now," out of a lack of the maturity that enables most adults to see beyond their own self-interest.

+1

[Greg Locock]

cam misunderstood bhall's video clip. The little girl is a character from willy wonka, and is a selfish pest, who naturally meets an unseemly end.

[Cam]

I understand the point he's making - "it's like this because I say so and my morales outweigh yours". I have stated that I agree with him and Schumacher should have his privacy, but we're both in the minority - and it seems there's a few heads shoved in the sand.

This has got nothing to do with any Hippocratic oath - c'mon bhall, be bigger than that - this is about a PR machine clamming tight when it suits and opening up when it suits - primarily to make money. The doctors don't have say anything - but the PR machine 'should'.

Making lemons from lemonade:
No one wants a tragedy, but good can come from the bad. Just imagine the global public awareness that brain injuries and associated treatments could have gotten with a well managed PR campaign from a major public figure like this. Imagine the lost opportunity to educate kids on wearing helmets - lost. The fans would of had their 'piece of flesh' and a very serious medical condition would have been highlighted to a global community.

Instead - the fans and world, got nothing and continue to get nothing, form someone a lot of people looked up too.

Is it all take, take, take? Is there simply no sense of responsibility?

Edit:

The BBC respects privacy and does not infringe it without good reason, wherever in the world it is operating. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives protection to the privacy of individuals, and private information about them, but balances that with a broadcaster's right to freedom of expression.

Legitimate Expectations of Privacy

An individual's legitimate expectation of privacy is qualified by location and the nature of the information and behaviour, and the extent to which the information is already in the public domain. People in the public eye may, in some circumstances, have a lower legitimate expectation of privacy.

Location: People in public places or in semi-public places cannot expect the same degree of privacy as in their own homes or other sensitive locations. (A semi-public place is somewhere which, though private property, gives the public general access, such as an airport, station or shopping mall.)

However, location must be considered in conjunction with the activity. There may be circumstances where people can reasonably expect privacy even in a public or semi-public space, particularly when the activity or information being revealed is inherently private. For example, there may be a greater expectation of privacy when someone is in a public or semi-public place but receiving medical treatment.

There may also be occasions when someone in a location not usually open to the public is engaged in an activity where they have a low expectation of privacy, for example a sales pitch or giving public information. We do not, though, normally reveal information which discloses the precise location of a person's home or family without their consent, unless it is editorially justified.

Behaviour: There is less entitlement to privacy where an individual's behaviour is criminal or seriously anti-social.

I know how much you love quoting the BBC.....