Monday, March 16, 2015

A Gentleperson's Agreement

I have received a complaint from a family member of Joshua Schwartz (of Joshua's Journey), asking that we do not discuss him here.  I have deleted all comments pertaining to him, and I ask that from this point on that no one discusses him or his family.  Additionally, I would ask that we extend that courtesy to all children.  I appreciate that so far all of you have been receptive to me when I have made requests like this.

I think that the majority of comments here are insightful and I like that we are discussing many of the key issues surrounding this case, like media responsibility and the effect of social media.  This blog was started because I am a passionate believer that cancer sufferers are entitled to the truth about what I perceive as lies regarding "alternative medicine".  I know that the discussion here sometimes moves on from that, and because this case involves so many facets of contemporary life that so desperately need to be discussed, I am happy to have people stop by and share their thoughts.  I realize that there is some controversy on being able to post anonymously, but I believe it was that one thing that was instrumental in getting Belle's story out there, so I will continue to let people post anonymously here.  The only thing I ask is that people behave as though they are posting under their real names here, even when posting anonymously.  I have seen some other discussions of Belle Gibson on the internet, and I must say that ours is by far the most gentle, so I only ask that we continue in that vein.

Thanks,

Violet

P.S.  One final request: please do not use this particular blog post to continue with comments about Belle Gibson.

14 comments:

  1. Violet, first off, and this is in no way a criticism, but given the charity that you have just mentioned above has been linked to the work of Belle Gibson, is it not fair and reasonable that they should be open to scrutiny given that they have allegedly been involved in accepting fundraising monies ? If in fact they have nothing to do with this and they do not accepted any donations, would it not be reasonable for them to release a statement to that effect so as to officially remove any association ? I in no way support a child being unfairly exposed, but it appears a little odd that they are the only charity who have asked to not be named ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am won't be arguing the merits of that one way or another. The issue was that a family member asked for us not to discuss it, and the person at the center of it is a child. They are not asking not to be named; they are asking that there not be any discussions of this boy or his family, so I am asking everyone to comply.

      Delete
  2. No problem, you are obviously sure of the legitimacy of the person who contacted you and on that basis I fully respect your decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Obviously I cannot be sure of anything online, but at the end of the day, not discussing Joshua's case takes nothing away from the discussion here. Also, whether the family requests it or not, I think it is simply decent to not discuss children in connection with something like this.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Good call.

      Delete
  3. I think this is more then reasonable :) Leave the poor child out of it. The issue is with adults, not innocent children. Thanks for doing such a great job moderating and respecting those who need protecting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Violet, total respect. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are they distancing themselves because they don't want to be connected.? Or are they themselves still seeking donations publicly - in which case the child's situation ihas been made public. I support your efforts but don't understand your position. Happy to listen to your view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also don't understand. I hope they provided proof. That i would understand.

      Delete
  6. I tend to agree with the above comment. Also, there are pictures online of the mother with Belle Gibson showing a clear link between the two. None of the comments I read here were about the child but more the charity which I assume was established by the parents. Surely it is possible to raise the issue of a related charity (and any possible
    deception) in a way that does not endanger the child. It sounds a little like you have been told/threatened to be quiet and not put that charity under the same scrutiny as others. The excuse of the child seems to absolve them of any liability or responsibility which seems a little bit strange and confusing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see your point, but I wouldn't want my son's name associated with this story. In fact I think that would be hell. I mean what could be worse than your child's illness being eclipsed in a media storm by a (insert your explanation for Belle Gibson's actions) woman?

      Delete
  7. If anyone wants to discuss any of this with me further, please email me at violetrealitybased@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with the idea behind not talking about children etc., however the family are now speaking out about the Belle Gibson story....article in the herald sun (http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/family-of-desperately-ill-boy-fear-health-guru-belle-gibson-used-their-son-to-bolster-her-cancer-claims/story-fni0fit3-1227273020233) so I am not sure it's fair for them to request to not be discussed but then go to the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please email me at violetrealitybased@gmail.com I wish to discuss this with you. I keep your details confidential. Thanks, Violet.

      Delete