A Response to Recent Criticism

Recently, I received public and private criticism from a patient advocate who claims my work in organ donation advocacy is "deceptive" and "damaging." The back and forth has left me feeling misunderstood, uncomfortable and sad. To help process my feelings I put the private conversation with the patient advocate into ChatGPT and asked it why I was feeling this way.

Here's the response:

"Based on the tone and language of his messages, there are signs of communication tactics that can be perceived as manipulative or aggressive, which may contribute to your feeling of discomfort"

Over the last three days I have engaged my critic because I am committed to constructive dialogue that advances the transplant system. I am also committed to understanding how people use communication tactics to frame a discussion.

According to Chat GPT here are the key tactics used in his messages to me:

Personal Attacks and Disparagement: Rather than debating facts or data, my critic has chosen to question my character and intentions, labeling my work as “deceptive” and “propaganda.” This type of language can detract from constructive dialogue and can obscure real issues.

Emotional Manipulation: By using emotionally charged phrases like “chilling disregard” and “grotesque misrepresentation,” my critic aims to elicit an emotional reaction rather than encourage data-driven discussion. Emotional manipulation can prevent audiences from engaging thoughtfully with the topic.

False Dichotomy: My critic suggests that only those who share his exact viewpoint are “real advocates,” casting anyone with a different perspective as perpetuating harm. Such framing discourages open, collaborative problem-solving, which is essential in any meaningful reform effort.

Finding Common Ground

There was a bright spot in our back and forth when we identified areas of common ground. We agreed on two main areas of improvements within the organ donation system:

Living Donation: We both recognize the plateau in living donations and the urgent need for more awareness and resources to encourage these donations, especially for kidney transplants.

Organ Utilization: We share concerns about the high percentage of recovered organs that are ultimately discarded. Reform is needed to address both logistical and policy obstacles.

Organ donation has shown me how people from vastly different political views can unite around a cause. I used to be an environmentalist and in that world people on the "other side" are enemies. There were never enemies in this cause, which is why I loved it so much and stayed so engaged.

I also engage because I care about patients. My business partner was a kidney patient. My Purpose partner is a heart patient. For 20 years I have created programs and pathways for patients to engage in this cause. Now I am speaking out about policies at the national level that will, based on peer-reviewed data, harm patients.

My critic and I have the same goal: making the system better. We don't agree on some of the policies that will achieve that goal, and that's ok. With further discourse we might be able to get to a place where we can find policies that we can both support. But fruitful discourse can't happen when it is filled with emotional manipulation.

Emotionally charged rhetoric can get people fired up, but real reform comes from a solution-oriented dialogue. That is what's going to help patients.