Barefoot Contessa Refuses to Meet with Make-a-Wish Child

[mkats]

I've also read reports that her managing/organizing people turned him down without her ever knowing it and that it wasn't until this all blew up in the media that she became aware. I don't know if I buy that, but YMMV...

The mother's blog doesn't seem all that weird to me. It doesn't sound to me like she was out to "get" Ina Garten, just was (understandably) upset and disappointed about her sick son not getting the wish he had wanted...and blogged about it, just as she has about every other part of his story. I wouldn't be surprised if she just thought it was another day, another update, another blog post, and then it suddenly all blew up in her face.

Of course, anything you put out on the internet is obviously public...

[IceAlisa]

I think the blog is the mother's outlet as part of dealing with her terrible ordeal. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it helps the mother keep her sanity. I am sorry but a mother with a child this sick who pours her pain out in a blog gets my sympathy over the ever-so-busy Ina Garten.

[BigB08822]

Yall are right. Ina Garten is a bitch from hell. It is so obvious, how could I never have seen it being a fan of her show? I am so stupid. Also, the mothers blog is not at all emotionally charged and possibly biased because of her stressful ordeal. Surely that is not a possibility. Finally, there is no such thing as a sensationalist news outlet that would possibly pick up on a non story and make it into a story by tearing down a celebrity? That's never ever happened, right?

[IceAlisa]

Why the , BigB08822? Are you Ina?

How is the mother biased? She seems to be reporting the facts that are confirmed and has since asked to stop blaming Ina and move on. Yes, celebrities are targets for sensationalist stories but in this case I think there IS a story.

[BittyBug]

How is the mother biased?

Are you serious? Her entire blog is from her perspective as the mother of a sick child - of course she's biased. That doesn't mean she's wrong (or right for that matter), but she is most certainly biased.

[IceAlisa]

Are you serious? Her entire blog is from her perspective as the mother of a sick child - of course she's biased. That doesn't mean she's wrong (or right for that matter), but she is most certainly biased.

So where does she express the bias? Does she say something that isn't true because of it? Of course she is on her child's side but the facts are that they've asked twice, were refused, public outrage followed, Ina caved, they went with the dolphins. I don't see any embellishments on her side, in fact she is asking for calm and to move on.

[dbell1]

Damn. Let's take it down a notch and talk about the boy. His wish was to cook with Ina. Kids like different things. This child liked to watch her show and wanted to cook with his favorite chef. He's sick. He's watching his friends die. His wish is his wish. How it somehow became his mom's idea is a bit puzzling. Or is it okay to vilify a child and his parents because he's upset some of her fans?

He got turned down. Twice. Frankly, if Ina tossed the requests into a flambe or some staffer went 'nope, we did the sick child thing a few times already', the outcome was the same.

As a mom, if someone did that to my son, I'd get pissed off too. Doesn't matter if Ina cooks for the homeless every night, she's her son's protector and she's upset.

I hope Enzo has a blast swimming with the dolphins. Because, in the end, it should be about the child.

[agalisgv]

Also, I know a parent who lost a child at about that age and blogged about their loss and grief. I think it helped them to deal with their tragedy. Having a child with cancer is horrendous. If the mother chose to talk about it online and the child is fine with it, what's the big deal? People deal with their burden in different ways.

There's a difference between blogging about a child's death (who is no longer around to be affected by whatever is blogged), and blogging about a live child's illness (to great detail). I'm sorry, but it's not just not all about the parent. It's easy for that kind of myopia to set in during trying times, but that doesn't make it right.

A child of six (which is supposedly how old Enzo currently is) is not in a position to give informed consent for his medical history to be broadcast to the world. He's not legally at the age where he is even considered able to appreciate the consequences of his actions. Even worse, this blog started when he was all of 3 years old. Expecting a toddler undergoing major medical treatment to give consent to publication of his image, sufferings, emotional struggles, disappointments, and anything he communicates to his caregivers is mind-boggling to me.

Just because a parent is under stress (including stress posed by a seriously ill child) doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever in the name of coping.

People make a lot of money off blogging about their problems these days.

Apparently this woman is trying to as well. She has a page set-up for people to direct deposit money into a paypal or bank account.

[martian_girl]

I've also read reports that her managing/organizing people turned him down without her ever knowing it and that it wasn't until this all blew up in the media that she became aware. I don't know if I buy that, but YMMV...

I wouldn't be too surprised if that were the case. It's impossible for a celebrity to do every request they are given, and quite often their people turn things down without the celeb even seeing it. She's probably done dozens of "wishes", but unfortunately she's getting raked over the coals for the one request she couldn't fulfill.

Not saying that she's all , but things can sometimes be blown out of proportion for the sake of a juicy gossip item.

[BittyBug]

So where does she express the bias? Does she say something that isn't true because of it?

Well, we don't really know that, do we? She presents the facts as she believes them to be true, but is what she presented the whole story?

I don't see any embellishments on her side, in fact she is asking for calm and to move on.

She doesn't have to embellish the situation to be show bias, and the fact that the mother is not asking for retribution but rather is asking everyone to move on is still irrelevant to whether she was biased in her interpretation of the situation. Our lens of perception is almost always personal, especially in a case like this. We selectively focus on a subset of facts because that's human nature. (Hence the saying - there are always three sides to the story - his, hers and the truth.)

(And FWIW, I genuinely don't have an opinion about this situation. My first reaction was surprise, because Gartner comes across as a very warm person on her show, but after reading all these posts, my only conclusion is that we really have no idea why things went down the way they did so who are we to judge any of them?)

[IceAlisa]

There's a difference between blogging about a child's death (who is no longer around to be affected by whatever is blogged), and blogging about a live child's illness (to great detail). I'm sorry, but it's not just not all about the parent. It's easy for that kind of myopia to set in during trying times, but that doesn't make it right.

A child of six (which is supposedly how old Enzo currently is) is not in a position to give informed consent for his medical history to be broadcast to the world. He's not legally at the age where he is even considered able to appreciate the consequences of his actions. Even worse, this blog started when he was all of 3 years old. Expecting a toddler undergoing major medical treatment to give consent to publication of his image, sufferings, emotional struggles, disappointments, and anything he communicates to his caregivers is mind-boggling to me.

I have a friend whose child is currently very sick with metastatic cancer. As a matter of fact, I've asked for prayers for this family right here on FSU. The father keeps a regular blog where he updates thousands of people on his condition. I doubt his 3 year old minds or cares or has given consent.

Are you going to sit in judgment of them too? Just because some are able to cope without a blog, doesn't make it criminal or in most cases, deplorable.

Just because a parent is under stress (including stress posed by a seriously ill child) doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever in the name of coping. Apparently this woman is trying to as well. She has a page set-up for people to direct deposit money into a paypal or bank account.

Blogging is not doing whatever. It's sharing information. Also, what it does accomplish is alert a lot of people to the ordeal and generates phenomena ranging from prayer to donations to cancer research. If people want to donate to her, it's not like she is robbing them at gun point. They want to help her and it's their choice.

[agalisgv]

I doubt his 3 year old minds or cares or has given consent.

You said before as long as the child has consented, there shouldn't be an issue. But as I pointed out, a child that young cannot give consent. So what you appear to now be saying is it's not important for a child to consent to the sharing of his/her intimate medical treatment and details of his/her personal life. As long as it brings a parent comfort, the child's wishes aren't an issue.

I profoundly disagree. If it brings a parent solace to smoke 24/7 in front of their child struggling with lung cancer, I don't find that an appropriate coping mechanism. Sharing intimate details and photos of another who is sick and vulnerable when they have no way to consent to that is wrong.

Blogging is not doing whatever. It's sharing information...If people want to donate to her, it's not like she is robbing them at gun point. They want to help her and it's their choice.

Of course it's their choice. But then her blogging isn't just about sharing information--it's about $$$ as well. And just as people are free to give, people are free to critique that too.

[IceAlisa]

You said before as long as the child has consented, there shouldn't be an issue. But as I pointed out, a child that young cannot give consent. So what you appear to now be saying is it's not important for a child to consent to the sharing of his/her intimate medical treatment and details of his/her personal life. As long as it brings a parent comfort, the child's wishes aren't an issue.

I am saying I don't see an issue with this particular blog. Why do you? Has the child complained about his privacy being violated?

I profoundly disagree. If it brings a parent solace to smoke 24/7 in front of their child struggling with lung cancer, I don't find that an appropriate coping mechanism.

Smoking 24/7 in front of the child and blogging about the child's illness is the same exact thing. Yup!

Sharing intimate details and photos of another who is sick and vulnerable when they have no way to consent to that is wrong.

Here's a cause for you then: http://www.caringbridge.org/

Go ahead and make sure every kid has given informed consent because their rights are being woefully abused.

Of course it's their choice. But then her blogging isn't just about sharing information--it's about $$$ as well. And just as people are free to give, people are free to critique that too.

Have you ever been offered financial assistance in any form? And if so, did you decline it?

[agalisgv]

Has the child complained that his privacy being violated?

The child isn't in a position to complain about his privacy because he's too young and sick. That doesn't mean his privacy isn't being violated or that it's somehow okay to do that because the child is too young to offer complaint. At what age does someone's right to privacy kick in? When parents feel like it?

But this all goes back to whose needs are really being met here. This isn't about educating the public or helping the child--it's about the parents. And parents shouldn't be putting their needs above those of their children--particularly when their children may be struggling with a life-threatening condition.

You can choose to focus on the parents' needs--I prefer to focus on the needs and rights of the children.

[IceAlisa]

The child isn't in a position to complain about his privacy because he's too young and sick. That doesn't mean his privacy isn't being violated or that it's somehow okay to do that because the child is too young to offer complaint. At what age does someone's right to privacy kick in? When parents feel like it?

But this all goes back to whose needs are really being met here. This isn't about educating the public or helping the child--it's about the parents. And parents shouldn't be putting their needs above those of their children--particularly when their children may be struggling with a life-threatening condition.

You can choose to focus on the parents' needs--I prefer to focus on the needs and rights of the children.

Be my guest, gather a group of self-righteous, paternalistic asshats and shut down caringbridge.org if it bothers you so much.

Yes, parents of children with cancer have needs to vent about their tragedy to the world. Felons begging to be convicted.

And you ignored my question about financial assistance.

[dbell1]

I think you two need a boxing ring and some feather pillows.

[BigB08822]

And you ignored my question about financial assistance.

Of course they did. It is pointless and absolutely none of your business.

[IceAlisa]

Of course they did. It is pointless and absolutely none of your business.

If someone is going to pass judgment about receiving it, it is reasonable to ask about their own practices. I am curious to see if agalisgv practices what she preaches.

[agalisgv]

Just because some are able to cope without a blog, doesn't make it criminal

Felons begging to be convicted.

Interesting you keep bringing up legal and possible criminal implications (especially given no one else has).

[IceAlisa]

Interesting you keep bringing up legal and possible criminal implications (especially given no one else has).

It's called hyperbole. Interesting that this is all you have to say.