You Can Feel It on Your Skin
You know how when you’re lying — even if it’s a white lie — you feel a little tense? I mean physically tense. Your muscles tighten; for me, it’s in my shoulders. If it’s a bigger lie, or an ethical compromise, I feel tight muscles and a coating on my skin, something slimy and creepy.
This is why it’s better to do the right thing — because your body (told by your brain, of course) feels good. Here’s what I mean: Without getting into too much detail, an opportunity came my way to be part of a documentary. It would have been fun, and probably good for my career, whatever that means. But then I found out the funding for the doc would be coming from Astra Zeneca, with a sponsored by Seroquel button or something Though the producers swore up and down that the funding had nothing to do with content, I said I couldn’t do it if AZ or Seroquel were involved.
The funny thing is that as soon as I sent that email, my entire body relaxed and I felt elated, briefly. I just knew I was doing the right thing by turning down the opportunity, despite the fact that I very much respect the makers of the documentary and I would’ve enjoyed doing it.
I just felt like I can’t be part of an effort that promotes Seroquel — funny, I know, coming from someone who A. relies on the drug, and B. used to speak for AZ on just that topic. But times — and Big Pharma — sure do change, don’t they?
liz | 11:30 AM | BIG PHARMA
Good for you Liz!!
I can imagine just how good it must have felt. I can also imagine the sickening temptation before you said no.
Good for you, Liz, for listening to that “small, still voice” from within – (or is it the “still, small voice”?). I think people are often influenced by money or associating with the powerful in ways that they are not even consciously aware of. And then there’s also the possibility that they could’ve edited your words in a way that made you seem to be saying something very different than what you actually said. Good choice all around, I believe.
“It would have been fun, and probably good for my career, whatever that means.” — Liz Spikol
Hmmm…Liz you could have agreed with the written understanding that you would have creative rights to approve the final cut so as to enable you to get the message out that you want to convey.
Furthermore, what would be wrong if the producers did assure you “that the funding had nothing to do with content” and the fact is you also utilize the product.
I watch many outstanding public television programs etc funded by some organizations I may not be enamored with. It doesn’t preclude me from watching the content which seldom has to do with the product and/or company funding the presentation.
Maybe you did miss out on something “good for my career” in not using your rational intellect and allowing your emotions to take control?
Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com
I can’t say whether I agree or disagree with your decision because it was yours to make
And only you know what’s right for you. But I will say that not everything sponsored by a drug company is evil by definition. Lately you have been quoting or re-posting a few things from Furious Seasons and after reading Phillip Dawdy’s blog in depth, I have come to believe that he does have a bias against any drug therapies for mental illness with the possible exception of Schizophrenia. I am diagnosed with bipolar I. I have it and it’s real and the only thing that ameliorates (sp?) the symptoms are the prescribed drugs that I take. All drugs or at least most, carry labels with dire side effect warnings not just psychiatric ones. It’s always a cost benefit analysis for the patient and their doctor. My doctor is not a tool of “big pharma.”. He is helping me through the most difficult illness I have ever faced. I hope you will continue to look at the whole picture as you have done so ever since you started your blog and videos.
Dear Martha,
Thanks for your posting and viewpoint. I always question the validity to my thinking as to whether or not I am the only one seeing things as I do.
Much as I in many instances admire Philip Dawdy’s efforts at researching and sharing some stories of interest to me I take exception to the fact that he often strokes himself for his outstanding journalism and reporting and his biased nature as I see it. When I differed with some of his conclusions relating to the autopsy report he presented about the author David Foster Wallace and the cause of his death I also cited for Dawdy a definition of journalist…“3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.” He in turn went ballistic and banned me. In my opinion I think Mr. Dawdy has trouble handling opinions differing from his especially when you and I as a very long-time support person and caregiver can share personal experiences and knowledge contrary to his gospel.
So once again thanks for confirming that my thoughts are not singular and that there is at least one other not taken in by his sometimes faltering journalism and “bias” as his followers continue to genuflect at his every word.
And like you, my spouse has been fortunate to have attending physicians more concerned with her wellbeing than being a tool of “big pharma.” In fact, she’s off medications once again for her depressive illness.
Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com
Herb,
Thanks for your comments, but my posting was actually directed to Liz Spikol.
Reply: