Sad to see my comment being downvoted because people disagree with it. The point that I was making was that he's shameless about his needs. Most people who have needs like his can't create this type of platform and exposure to be heard.
And it is shameless. Why do I care about amit gupta, and why are all his promotional materials centered around HIM, and not acute leukemia? People suffer every day who can't be heard like this, is it so wrong to bring up that uncomfortable fact?
To the people saying, "well what he's doing is good for others, too!" Yes, I agree. But face it, he never would've done this had he never got acute leukemia. So my original hope remains: "if this works out for him, it would be cool to see him champion other peoples' life-threatening needs." With him seeing the direct benefit of these efforts on his life, it would be cool if he maybe took it a step further and continued it for others.
> why are all his promotional materials centered around HIM(...)
Because it is more effective. It is marketing 101 that it helps to spread a message if you have a face to put on display. His story tells much more than any infochart about leukemia ever will. You can bet that people are much more inclined to help if they know who is in need.
Also, IMO, it is more honest. Even if he is "privileged" to be heard when others can't, there should be no shame in him being able to exercise this privilege to save his own life.
There's that and there is the fact that his personal background allows the spotlighting of the fact that his demographic is under-represented in the tissue banks, a fact which I did not know about.
Andrew, your comment is correct when literally interpreting dictionary definitions but misses the spirit of the situation.
If we take the current criticisms (of your comment) as being morally representative of the general population (probably a decent approximation) then most people would consider the dictionary definitions of ``shameless'' and ``modest'' to be incomplete and not applicable (at least not to someone that is possibly dying). That is one reason why you see so many upset comments here.
In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.
> In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.
I know...
But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions, that his is no more important, and that his experience has helped him realize the greater good of focusing on promoting a cause like bone marrow transplants.
Instead, he chose to come off very selfish and presumptuous of his own importance to literally everyone he can reach. Just read the promotional materials, it really is shameless.
Back to my original comment though, it would be cool if he continued exactly what he's doing, but for other people, if this works out for him.
Permit me to explain how I see this. You may disagree strongly with me but I hope to convey why your comment aroused so much passion.
I don't see Amit as considering himself to be more important than anyone else. I see a man who is trying to save his own life (with very little time to spare) and I have sympathy with his cause. I don't expect him to take this cause further when he is well, even though I know that many people in the world are suffering.
My position is very different from yours. I find it difficult to agree with the sentiment of your comment because I don't expect Amit to be looking out for anyone else but himself at this moment. In this case, I suspect that many others here have similar views.
>But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions,
He should do nothing to save himself until he's helped cure Cancer; TB; Malaria; HIV/AIDs; Starvation; Poor Sanitation; War; Earthquake prediction; etc etc?
>that his is no more important
I'm guessing (I don't know him) that it's more important to him and his loved ones.
A) I think modesty no longer becomes a factor when you are desperately trying to save your own life.
B) Sure, the design is a little flashy (I think it looks great, by the way), but I don't think he is being terribly immodest. He's not bragging about his accomplishments, he's just trying to get people to sign up as bone marrow donors, and he's using his personal plight as motivation.
Designer of the site here. (Thank you for the kind words.) We wanted to do something upbeat and positive, a kind of join-the-movement and do-your-part vibe. If it were a story just about Amit, we might be more dire, but this is a much bigger cause and we wanted to express that.
He's not morally wrong, I'm saying the nature of what he's doing is shameless. Clearly this is an important issue to him, but he's vastly overestimating his importance to everyone else. That's fine. I'm just calling it like I see it.
I believe what's going on is that the choice of calling it "shameless" brings in a number of connotations that you may not have intended. In the adverbial form it ends up bringing upon social and moral connotation beyond what you seem to be intending[1]. What I wonder is if there's a better way to put this.
If I was Amit, I would've included other sufferers in the campaign, instead of hoarding the attention all to myself. Many others could have benefited from this massive amount of exposure.
Everyone who gets swabbed is added to a national database and can be matched to anyone else who needs a donor.
The efforts happening on his behalf are, by and large, very consciously being done with this in mind. They are increasing awareness of underrepresented populations in the bone marrow database and making a much larger impact.
Also, these efforts are being coordinated and implemented by volunteers on Amit's behalf. Amit himself is not running this show. People who have better things to do than troll the internet are.
And it is shameless. Why do I care about amit gupta, and why are all his promotional materials centered around HIM, and not acute leukemia? People suffer every day who can't be heard like this, is it so wrong to bring up that uncomfortable fact?
To the people saying, "well what he's doing is good for others, too!" Yes, I agree. But face it, he never would've done this had he never got acute leukemia. So my original hope remains: "if this works out for him, it would be cool to see him champion other peoples' life-threatening needs." With him seeing the direct benefit of these efforts on his life, it would be cool if he maybe took it a step further and continued it for others.