Greetings!

"Simple" solutions doesn't mean "easy" or  what is expeditious or convenient.  Abandoning hope for valued relationships is never easy, and I resist ditching anyone too soon. I believe that I owe it to myself as much as to my loved ones to hang in through difficult times.

K is someone I looked forward to seeing every year as a client. Over many years of caring for him, he became a friend. We take care of the business at hand, then we take the time to catch up on each other's lives

We both have adventuresome spirits and share the similar passions and interests, among them caring for the elderly,  the cure for  AIDS, and the theatre. 

At Christmas, K's cards with its bawdy humor made me laugh, and  he always dropped off a box of chocolates. I don't eat sugary sweets; and for me, the thought really did count.

The last time he was in to see me, we celebrated his dramatic weight loss, talked about his plans for an import business,  and discussed his plans for eventual retirement in Mexico. 

This year, I won't be seeing K.  

~~~

Almost a year ago, counting on our friendship that has been cultivated over eighteen years, K, sought what he believed was a simple solution.  He sent to our office a young man, his partner's nephew who was visiting for a few days from the East Coast en route to a study-abroad college program to Morocco.

My schedule is booked a year in advance, and the young man was seen by one of my associates. The young man was in a predicament, one that could have been wholly avoided with a modicum of foresight and pre-planning on his part. He proposed an expeditious solution that he thought would easily bail him out of his situation at the least cost for himself.

If a trip to Morocco could be planned, shouldn't he have simply taken care of his basic needs ahead of time?  We are all busy people, but some things are more important than others. Instead, by neglecting to take care of these needs, things got complicated and now involved his uncle, his uncle's partner and now, us?

The solution he proposed may look simple and innocuous to those who are not in our field, but through our eyes, in view of the recent suits against distributors and manufacturers by those who have been harmed with the casual dispensing of FDA-regulated drugs, and with the laws in limbo, we are conservative for our clients' sakes.  

No exceptions. 

~~~

We know too well the possible sequelae of neglect.  We are aware of the potential for harm and possibility of complications from the unattended use of FDA-regulated drugs, in ways the consumer will never know. 

Our schools taught us well to avoid such client-led scenarios, including the case of a professional who thought he was helping out one of his friends on a ski trip who was in a pinch similar to this young man's. That friend ended up with a massive infection and promptly sued the professional. So much for friendship.

Our professional journals are filled with cases of those who have been permanently harmed with the casual dispensing of drugs without follow-up care. Our professional experience has taught us well to stick to what is best for the client, not what is most expedient or convenient.

That this young man found himself in this predicament spoke volumes to my associate, as it did me.  It had all the earmarks for potential problems. This was the almost exact case that our professor had taught us and warned us about...

My associate's decision to not be client-led was a solid one.

~~~

Within a short time, I got a call from K, who was none too happy when he asked me if I would override my associate's decision.  

"After all, it's your office...your call."

I had never even met the young man.  I explained that the solution proposed was untenable, as it involved an FDA-regulated drug and the young man was refusing follow-up care. 

Overriding my associate's decision without seeing the patient myself was out of the question. Going along with the simple solution would mean the bending of long-established, thought-out rules and office protocols, as well as going against my associate's best professional judgment.

I reminded him that we took an oath, an oath that we take seriously and which we, my associates, staff and I, uphold with every client interaction. Explaining the specific whys to my friend would have involved breaching client confidentiality, and so, without being specific,  I said  "No" in the gentlest and most tactful way that I could muster. 

He took it as a personal rebuff and slammed the door on our friendship. Possibly, he was disappointed and left wondering, "Well, what are friends for...?!"  Perhaps, he was embarassed, maybe even hurt, that our connection -- our friendship -- had not yielded the simple solution? 

~~~

For the last six months, I've grieved the loss of our friendship, but I've also been perplexed and stultified.

It was our strict adherence to do what is right -- and not what is expedient or convenient -- that had once saved him from a lifetime loss, eighteen years ago, when he first came to us as a client. Knowing he was at high risk and that his HMO would not provide the advanced testing as a preventive measure, we went the extra mile to provide the specialized tests that detected a serious problem before symptoms arose.  Late detection would have lead to lifelong consequences. 

When the problem was diagnosed, knowing the seriousness of the diagnosis, everyone voluntarily stayed overtime for at least an hour and did not leave until the emergency care was obtained for K.

Knowing that the emergency care with the specialist was going to cost him a lot, I waived our own fees in the spirit of helping. Also, because I knew about K's cousin's dramatic, related loss, something that I felt that the HMO might overlook in his history, I did not have confidence in her HMO's cursory care and for the next four testings, I absorbed the $90 cost per testing that we did for him in our office.  

He was only charged once for the testing, and that was when I was out of the office, taking care of my father when he was dying.

~~~

In hindsight, doing the right thing would have cost the young man an additional $30 dollars, a pittance in comparison to the combined costs of visiting California and a trip to Morocco.

K now has his own business and is doing well. It has occurred to me that if money was the issue, why didn't K or his uncle simply give him -- or loan -- him the money instead of allowing things to blow completely out of proportion?  

That would have been the simple solution, would it not? Had we not given K over $500 worth of services when money was tight for him without a second thought?

The irony is:  because he was referred to the office by K and our office manager, Cia, knew K and I  were friends, even if the young man was being seen by my associate and not by me, she extended the young man a professional courtesy, as is our prerogative, of ... $30.

~~~

This week, with the help of another friend, Cia,  and watching the opportunistic Malibu executive's bending of rules and listening to his rationalizations on PBS' Frontier House, a series that my friend, Cia, had highly recommend, I changed.  

I no longer take the loss of K's friendship personally, and instead, grant beingness to him. I let go...if only for awhile. I don't give up on people very easily or quickly, and sometimes, it means to simply let go for awhile. I'll keep believing in them, even if they don't believe in themselves, from a distance in time and space. 

Eventually, K and I will come together in friendship and with the knowing that we are each other's helper and stepping stones, companions along the way. 

If not in this life, then the next...

If I wish to be alive, I must learn to die at every moment, that is, to say goodbye, let go, move on. ~ Anthony de Mello

past    the present    future

who | what | archives | comments | photos