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

[agalisgv]

It's called hyperbole.

I see. Good to know on what you level you posting at this point.


As a sidenote, there was a case that came before the SC that touches on some of the issues discussed here (negotiating between parental rights and children's right to medical privacy), and the SC ruled against the parents saying even if it is in the interests of a parent, a parent cannot waive a child's right to privacy WRT medical history if the welfare and interest of the minor will not be protected in the process. IOW, any waiving of privacy on the part of the parent must be done in the best interests of the child, not the parent. Food for thought.

[WindSpirit]

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.

No one said she was a bitch from hell. No need to over-dramatize things.

Also, the mothers blog is not at all emotionally charged and possibly biased because of her stressful ordeal. Surely that is not a possibility.

I think she's completely biased and somewhat emotional, it's her child after all and he's terminally sick. That's been their life for quite a few years now.

It all doesn't have to be black and white, though. There's no need to send the mother to hell in order to defend Garten. There are thousands of parents blogging about their children, many of them too young to express their approval. Like it or not, they do it. Are we going to judge all of them or just this mother?

She didn't set up the blog just to get back at Garner, she blogged about it because it was a part of their lives. By her own admittance she didn't expect it to become such a big deal, let alone did she want people to harass Garner. She asked for it to stop and admitted her own mistake. What else do you people want? You don't want others to judge Garner, but you're more than ready to do it to the mother.

[IceAlisa]

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?

Several news outlets presented the same story that is presumably corroborated by the Make A Wish people as well. What do you think is being missed?

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.)

Well, we go on what we have. Ina Garter's people haven't contradicted the story. Make A Wish people haven't contradicted the story. The evidence is that the two refusals and an offer following publication of the story are fact.

(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?)

Again we go by what we have and no one has come forward to dispute any of the reports.

As to Ina seeming warm on the show--it's only a show. She may or may not be a warm person in real life. Martha Stewart comes off somewhat normal on her show too. How a person appears on their show shouldn't be evidence as to their true nature. And again, no one has disputed mother's reports, not Ina's reps nor Make A Wish rep. I don't have a reason to doubt that's what happened at the present.

[IceAlisa]

I see. Good to know on what you level you posting at this point.

On the level entirely appropriate for you, someone who compares blogging to smoking 24/7 in front of their child.

As a sidenote, there was a case that came before the SC that touches on some of the issues discussed here (negotiating between parental rights and children's right to medical privacy), and the SC ruled against the parents saying even if it is in the interests of a parent, a parent cannot waive a child's right to privacy WRT medical history if the welfare and interest of the minor will not be protected in the process. IOW, any waiving of privacy on the part of the parent must be done in the best interests of the child, not the parent. Food for thought.

And yet no one is shutting down caryingbridge.org or these blogs.

Come to think of it, I bet there are support groups for parents of kids with cancer and other terminal diseases where the parents discuss their child's medical conditions. I doubt that in all cases there are written consents present from the kids. Someone better get on that violation of privacy.

Seriously, if these blogs and support groups mean that the parent receives social support, compassion and relief of their burden, I'd argue that it's in the best interest of the child to have a better functioning parent.

[DianeO]

I just have to say that caringbridge.org is a fabulous website. A few years ago a former student of mine (then in 2nd grade) was critically ill in the hospital for quite a few months. The parents posted frequent updates on her condition and IMO it was a fabulous way for them to keep family and friends updated without having to make dozens of phone calls each day to let people know what was going on. I think it relieved a lot of stress for them and made communication easier. I couldn't imagine being in that situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think caringbridge may be a little different than the blog site of Enzo's mom in that for caringbridge, you have to know the child's name to access their page, whereas Enzo's seems completely public? Don't know for sure.

[michiruwater]

I really don't see why it appears to be so difficult to entertain both the notions that Garten really simply wasn't able to make this happen, and that the mother was upset because her child wasn't going to get his first wish, but that neither of them meant any real harm and neither is actually in the wrong. It just didn't work out. Neither needs to be vilified, and neither deserves to be.

[mkats]

I'm curious - what do you all think of the twitter trend to tweet celebrities w/ a link to the sick child's page and asking them to pray for the child/retweet to their followers?

[taf2002]

I really don't see why it appears to be so difficult to entertain both the notions that Garten really simply wasn't able to make this happen, and that the mother was upset because her child wasn't going to get his first wish, but that neither of them meant any real harm and neither is actually in the wrong. It just didn't work out. Neither needs to be vilified, and neither deserves to be.

I have no doubt this woman is busy if she has a TV show but let's not make her out to be an international star. I have never heard of the "Barefoot Contessa" except from an old Sophia Loren movie but then I don't watch cooking shows.

And as for invading that child's privacy, that's ridiculous. If you accuse this one mother, then you have to accuse every parent on the planet. How many of you parents have told funny but extremely embarrassing stories about your child(ren) which they would prefer never be told? How many of you have had a child with some ailment, whether serious or minor, & have kept all info completely to yourself? Did you ask your child if he/she wanted to share that info? Of course not. You're the parent, you make those decisions.

[Karina1974]

I have never heard of the "Barefoot Contessa" except from an old Sophia Loren movie

That was Ava Gardner who starred in the movie, opposite Humphrey Bogart.

[BittyBug]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think caringbridge may be a little different than the blog site of Enzo's mom in that for caringbridge, you have to know the child's name to access their page, whereas Enzo's seems completely public? Don't know for sure.

I believe that's true. A friend of mine is battling a very serious illness right now and he uses the bridge site to keep everyone informed about his treatment and progress. I know we needed to be authorized by him to access his site, and out of curiosity, I did a general search on his name and the bridge site did not show up in the search, so I think that even though it's a public service, the site provides a fair amount of privacy, unlike a public blog.

And as for invading that child's privacy, that's ridiculous. If you accuse this one mother, then you have to accuse every parent on the planet. How many of you parents have told funny but extremely embarrassing stories about your child(ren) which they would prefer never be told? How many of you have had a child with some ailment, whether serious or minor, & have kept all info completely to yourself? Did you ask your child if he/she wanted to share that info? Of course not. You're the parent, you make those decisions.

To me there is a huge difference between someone saying something to a person one on one, and someone posting something on a public web site that will become part of the permanent archives of cyberspace, searchable and findable by anyone for ever more. That's really the problem with a public journal, isn't it? Even the mother herself says she and her son have moved on and would like everyone else to do so as well, but since her original blog posting is out there in cyberspace for all the world to see and debate, people keep coming back to it.

[michiruwater]

I have no doubt this woman is busy if she has a TV show but let's not make her out to be an international star. I have never heard of the "Barefoot Contessa" except from an old Sophia Loren movie but then I don't watch cooking shows.

Okay, seriously, if someone told me I needed to find the time right now to make dinner with a dying child one night, I would really, honestly have a very difficult time doing so. I can't even find time to cook for me. And I am just a college student. I do not have books or a TV shows or publicity tours. I know we can't assume that she didn't just blow him off, but we can't just assume that she did either.

Like I said, no one in this whole thing is necessarily a bad person. I really don't know why people have to vilify one or the other. The mother is going through something very few of us - I won't assume no one here has had this occur - can even begin to relate to, and we have no idea what Garten's life is like. Why does everything have to be black and white?

[taf2002]

That was Ava Gardner who starred in the movie, opposite Humphrey Bogart.

You're right, I was thinking about Houseboat. Anyway when I saw the title of this thread I thought of the movie since I had no idea there was anyone using that name.

[IceAlisa]

I just have to say that caringbridge.org is a fabulous website. A few years ago a former student of mine (then in 2nd grade) was critically ill in the hospital for quite a few months. The parents posted frequent updates on her condition and IMO it was a fabulous way for them to keep family and friends updated without having to make dozens of phone calls each day to let people know what was going on. I think it relieved a lot of stress for them and made communication easier. I couldn't imagine being in that situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think caringbridge may be a little different than the blog site of Enzo's mom in that for caringbridge, you have to know the child's name to access their page, whereas Enzo's seems completely public? Don't know for sure.

If you are a classmate, a neighbor, a teacher or a friend of a friend of a friend, you name it, you can still log on if the parents didn't require authorization which in many cases they do not. I can tell you that in one case, there are low to mid 5 figure number of people getting updates. I am guessing that prior to the Ina Garter uproar, a comparable number of people followed this mother's blog, if that many. Yes, a blog is somewhat more accessible but the idea is the same. There is no privacy in either case.

I do see a lot of value for both the parent and the child. If blogs or sites like caringbridge is a form of sharing and receiving support and thus alleviates some the suffering of the parent, the child will benefit.

Bitty, as I've said before--what about support groups? There could be complete strangers in support groups for parents of children with terminal illness and yet there is often full disclosure. I really don't think that the child always authorizes support groups in writing, do you? Is it the number of people that bothers you, the proximity to the family, what exactly do you think is different with blogging vs. going to a support group in terms of violation of privacy? Yes, complete strangers often have access, in caringbridge too, very often you don't need the family's authorization. These are all comparable things. And once again, I think prior to this incident, I doubt the whole world was following the blog in question. The mother doesn't appear to be basking in the spotlight.

[Angelskates]

As a mom, if someone did that to my son, I'd get pissed off too.

I'd be disappointed, but I don't think I'd be angry. It's a huge priveledge to get a wish granted, let alone your first or second choice. Many, many people apply and not all can get their wishes granted.

[Karina1974]

You're right, I was thinking about Houseboat. Anyway when I saw the title of this thread I thought of the movie since I had no idea there was anyone using that name.

That's what always pops into my head too.

[bek]

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.

The point is that it wasn't fair of the mother to bring up the Countess on her blog. She did it publically and while maybe she didn't realize it would blow up, it did.

I'm personally not wanting to crucify the mother because obviously the mom is going through one of the most horrific experiences a parent can go through. But the fact of the matter is the mother doesn't know the Countess and doesn't know whats going on in the Countess's life.

The countess may get NUMEROUS requests like this. And while she may try to make time for charity, and according to Make a Wish she does. She may not have time to accept every request she gets. We also don't know whats going on in the Countess's personal life either. And professional obligations are professional obligations.

I'm sure in all of our lives there are times when we've had to turn down charity events etc. We may all try to do what we can, but we can't do everything. I'm sorry but I definetly think its unfair of the mother to go public like this. Not only to the Countess but to the whole Make a Wish Foundation. This being said the mother made a mistake and is gong through H@@LL

[IceAlisa]

Why wasn't it fair to bring her up in the blog? She stated facts that are very relevant to the blog's topic and didn't accuse Ina Garten.

[bek]

Why wasn't it fair to bring her up in the blog? She stated facts that are very relevant to the blog's topic and didn't accuse Ina Garten.

Its not fair because Ina might have good reasons saying no. And it makes Ina look heartless. It was selfish on the mother's part to mention Ina's name.

[Rex]

I really don't see why it appears to be so difficult to entertain both the notions that Garten really simply wasn't able to make this happen, and that the mother was upset because her child wasn't going to get his first wish, but that neither of them meant any real harm and neither is actually in the wrong. It just didn't work out. Neither needs to be vilified, and neither deserves to be.

Because a child with a terminal disease is involved; no matter what side you are on IMO, it tugs at one's heartstrings.

[IceAlisa]

Its not fair because Ina might have good reasons saying no. And it makes Ina look heartless. It was selfish on the mother's part to mention Ina's name.

Why? She only mentioned facts and her child's disappointment. She didn't make any accusations. Why should she care about Ina Garten's PR, exactly?

Because a child with a terminal disease is involved; no matter what side you are on IMO, it tugs at one's heartstrings.

Pediatric oncology is heartbreaking. Kudos to people who can do this job.