I didn’t read the column by the wife but I didn’t read Bill Keller’s column as an attack on Adams or being particularly discomforted by her public response. I think he’s leery of the voyeuristic aspect and troubled with what’s likely to be an inevitable turn in her writing. I don’t doubt that her blog was more an excuse for him to write the column than the primary motivation. He treats people with metastatic cancer and probably has to say on that subject, if there is a strong criticism I’d say that it’s the fact that he never makes a strong connection between the palliative options he’s talking about and her case. The message I get from his article is ‘aggressive treatment is probably right for her (and its her choice anyways) but other people shouldn’t be ashamed of palliative care’, which raises the question of why he talked about her as much as he did.
As far as I can tell the major justification for the criticism is the fact she felt ‘bullied’, which is unfortunate and the tone should be more sensitive, but anything except a puff piece is going to contain some critical remarks. She’s publicly sharing her experiences because she wants to communicate something, having cancer doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to argue with her message.
Btw, where did he write “touched a nerve”? I didn’t find that in the article.
