- Messages
- 38
http://thoughtsaboutme.com/2013/10/16/opening-pandoras-box-pandora-cozies-up-to-iom/
PANDORA’s position begs the following question: What’s in it for PANDORA? A patient organization that assists in obtaining nominees for the IOM committee would have to expect that, by doing so, its reputation would be tarnished and its patient support would (further) dwindle? In light of such drastic negative effects, there had to be something to be gained by the organization and/or the people running it. In the case of the CAA, these gains are likely future government contracts, participation in governmental activities and possibly future government grants. What could it be for PANDORA and other “advocacy” organizations? Is it prestige and influence they are after by being perceived as being connected to the institutional bureaucratic sphere of influence and other powers that be? Such egocentric quest for power and standing would be in direct opposition to the interests of the patients. CAA history seems to be repeating itself.