I'd certainly assumed it was incompetence, and possibly indifference. The idea that it was deliberate hadn't occurred to me, but yes I guess that is the more likely explanation.
Paula Shelton was a student politics opponent of mine, but one I always respected and got on with well personally. Good to see her taking a case like this - I think she'd be a lot more sensitive to her clients' emotional state than most lawyers, which would be a very good thing in this case.
Stephen L, it's a measure of women's knowledge-by-experience of how much some men hate them that I and most of the women here and most of the women I know were/are taking it for granted that it was done deliberately. (And of course many anti-abortionists are fanatics.) It never occurred to me that he didn't do it deliberately until seepi's comment above. And I look forward to hearing the full story.
On you Kerryn, for that last comment and the rest. I must say I found the lack of detail in the article so complete that I learned absolutely nothing about the esoterica of the case, whether it was deliberate, accidental or to do with some sort of conservative crankery, as some here have thought.
The more I think about this thread, the more it occupies my thinking. It is the emerging, ugly Dorian Grey portrait, full of Uncle Vanya vanity and Doestoyevskian ethical and personal disintegration under unanticipated stress- real "Damage", likely through inculcated middle class individuation. But who heals the physicians? The other reason the portrait has me uncomfortable is because it reminds of me, cold porridge, but I probably needed to know it.
Still Life With Cat is an all-purpose blog containing reflections on whatever is going on in the realms of literature, politics, media, music, dinner, gardening etc. Its original incarnation is Pavlov's Cat (2005-2008).
Read, Think, Write is about all things books and writing, and incorporates Australian Literature Diary (2005-2010) and Ask the Brontë Sisters (May-July 2007).
Blogs are by Kerryn Goldsworthy, a writer, critic and editor who lives and works in Adelaide, South Australia.
What I'm reading
-
James Meek, Nobody Wants To Hear This, London Review of Books, v46 n22, 21
November 2024
Something like this is happening in the Kharkiv of 2024. Vladimi...
What immigration means for cheap food
-
A reader, Lynn Ripley, sent me a link to this article from the New York
Times: What a Crackdown on Immigration Could Mean for Cheap Milk What Peter
does ...
OMFG
-
I'm out of practice, but what the hell! Let's go posting! And I'm even
sober!
This afternoon I caught up with the lovely Mindy to go and see a lecture by...
Finished my book
-
Well, I finished my book. I'm very proud of it. It'll be published on 19
September.
I made a website about it which has some nice pictures and bi...
I know you are but what am I
-
*Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World* – Naomi Klein
*Sydney Review of Books* (13 May 2024)
Richard Hofstadter coined the term ‘paranoid style’...
Deep Water publication day!
-
Today marks the Australian publication of my new book, Deep Water: The
World in the Ocean. It’s a really special moment for me: I first began
thinking abou...
Lahti
-
I am in Lahti, Finland, to give a talk at the Lahti Symphony's Sibelius
Festival. I've been wanting to visit since I encountered Osmo Vänskä's
revelatory B...
life is not a blog post
-
I was in a café this morning when the waiter, a beardy bloke in his early
20’s called me “my love”. I wondered if that was a term of endearment he
reserve...
use it or lose it
-
turns out if you don't blog for over a year the part of your brain that
stores your blog password (the same one you've had for the entire ten,
no, ELEVEN y...
Starting again
-
It's the nature of blogs to go from feverish activity to inaction, and
Humanities Researcher is no exception. It's been a very busy year, but I am
currentl...
Not-cross-buns, 2016
-
Continuing a fine tradition in our house of subverting pre-existing
festivals for our own purposes, I’ve made not-cross-buns, using the
excellent recipe on...
Celebrating new books
-
Over the next week I'm looking forward to celebrating the birth of two new
books.
No. Not mine. When contemplating the release of my own book I'm generally...
A pretext for moving along
-
I think I've come to terms that this blog is over. It was a fantastic way
to meet people and talk about my thoughts and processes, but I seem to be
channe...
Plus Ultra!
-
I know Brian said that we’d posted our last, but I couldn’t let the very
kind words on the thread announcing our closure to go un-remarked. I also
thought ...
A condolence of sorts
-
Melbourne. Full moon, winter solstice and a real chill in the air. I have
been walking the Fitzroy streets even more than usual in the days since
Betty Bur...
Larvatus Prodeo: A four-cannon salute
-
Sad news as the good ship Larvatus Prodeo hoists anchor and departs the
waters immediately to our south.
Fort Solor duly issues four-gun salute. *Sargento ...
Letter to Charlie - 10 months
-
Dear Charlie
Yesterday you turned 10 months old.
You are changing from a baby into a little boy before our eyes at the
moment and it is quite amazin...
sleeping with bears
-
On Sunday morning, I caught up with the not-so-speedies (a ka: the
‘slowpokes’). For those not in the know, this is a consortium of peoples
who prefer to r...
Recalling the Public Phone
-
Guest Post by Jayde Cahir
I have owned a mobile for 14 years. Even while backpacking overseas in the
late 90s I carried one with me. But I’m not a mobile ...
7 comments:
it seems he was using clinic needles to shoot up drugs, then using them on the patients.
so it may have been just junkie-hopelessness, rather than a vendetta against the patients.
a very wierd case.
Unbelievable. He must have known.
I see this as a hate crime. Deliberately infecting women having a late term abortion. Anyone know if he believes in god?
I'd certainly assumed it was incompetence, and possibly indifference. The idea that it was deliberate hadn't occurred to me, but yes I guess that is the more likely explanation.
Paula Shelton was a student politics opponent of mine, but one I always respected and got on with well personally. Good to see her taking a case like this - I think she'd be a lot more sensitive to her clients' emotional state than most lawyers, which would be a very good thing in this case.
Stephen L, it's a measure of women's knowledge-by-experience of how much some men hate them that I and most of the women here and most of the women I know were/are taking it for granted that it was done deliberately. (And of course many anti-abortionists are fanatics.) It never occurred to me that he didn't do it deliberately until seepi's comment above. And I look forward to hearing the full story.
On you Kerryn, for that last comment and the rest. I must say I found the lack of detail in the article so complete that I learned absolutely nothing about the esoterica of the case, whether it was deliberate, accidental or to do with some sort of conservative crankery, as some here have thought.
The more I think about this thread, the more it occupies my thinking. It is the emerging, ugly Dorian Grey portrait, full of Uncle Vanya vanity and Doestoyevskian ethical and personal disintegration under unanticipated stress- real "Damage", likely through inculcated middle class individuation. But who heals the physicians?
The other reason the portrait has me uncomfortable is because it reminds of me, cold porridge, but I probably needed to know it.
Post a Comment