There is a lot of litterature on what makes a hero -- somehone whose tale is worthy to be told and who should be admired for it. A Hero's journey has to be the classic few have actually read, but many know well enough to refer to:
* ideal world, left or destroyed (no matter the reason): he was living a confortable life in a developed country; whether you consider the catastrophy to be his departure or his discovery of the epidemic, both match;
* his actions have to be taxing, unexpected, foster his personal qualities and changed the hero's perspective: taking care of patients with a hemoragic fever is very daunting; he didn't come for that and had to learn how (from what would be the 'Fairy godmother' secondary charater, presumably an expert either local doctor or on hemoragic fevers); he didn't go there to catch the fever anyway;
* his goal must be clear and positive (aka the Princess, or the Treasure) and be slightly different than expected, to match the hero's own change: cure Ebola, or reach good health in the area; maybe have people die in dignity; he ended up being not a carer but a patient, too; might need a little more detail, but that part is pretty well covered;
* resolution must be positive (not necesarily for the hero who may die, but for the world): we have a known process to adress Ebola (with Western-grade medecine) and still the story not over (the 'and had many children' part, obviously 90% of the story, one where being a hero but not part of the narrow frame that makes a hero): we still need to eradicate the desease.
I would say his experience fits squarely within the heroic framework.
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this comment. It took me back to High School English class, in a good way. There's so much dumb discussion online, about these people and many others, about who deserves to be called a "hero". You're the first one I've seen to actually lay it out in a sensible and reasonably objective manner.
If he was a doctor in AIDS ward, and got infected with HIV while caring for other sick patients, wouldn't he be considered a hero? He is a missionary doctor oversea, working in some of the poorest countries in the world, clearly not doing for the money. Believe it or not, people have been called heroes for doing a lot less than that.
If he was a doctor in AIDS ward, and got infected with HIV while caring for other sick patients, wouldn't he be considered a hero?
Why is contraction of the virus implied as a necessary condition for being a hero? Clearly the heroic act is the treatement of others; that the hypothetical AIDS doctor or these ebola doctors contracted the disease they were treating in others should not be a necessary condition for considering them heroes.
It isn't; it's the risk of doing so that one willingly runs which makes one a hero. Since we don't see these peole at work the fact of contracting it is an indirect proof of hands-on activity.
[Brantly] said Ebola "was not on the radar" when he and his family moved to Liberia in October.
I wouldn't have been in Liberia in the first place, but if I had been, I would've been on the first plane out as soon as I even heard a rumor about an Ebola outbreak. He could have--the U.S. is aggressive in helping American citizens evacuate from situations like that. The fact he stayed and helped is what makes him a hero.
Comments
Heroes.
I'm curious why you think that. Or did you mean the doctors that helped save them?
There is a lot of litterature on what makes a hero -- somehone whose tale is worthy to be told and who should be admired for it. A Hero's journey has to be the classic few have actually read, but many know well enough to refer to:
* ideal world, left or destroyed (no matter the reason): he was living a confortable life in a developed country; whether you consider the catastrophy to be his departure or his discovery of the epidemic, both match;
* his actions have to be taxing, unexpected, foster his personal qualities and changed the hero's perspective: taking care of patients with a hemoragic fever is very daunting; he didn't come for that and had to learn how (from what would be the 'Fairy godmother' secondary charater, presumably an expert either local doctor or on hemoragic fevers); he didn't go there to catch the fever anyway;
* his goal must be clear and positive (aka the Princess, or the Treasure) and be slightly different than expected, to match the hero's own change: cure Ebola, or reach good health in the area; maybe have people die in dignity; he ended up being not a carer but a patient, too; might need a little more detail, but that part is pretty well covered;
* resolution must be positive (not necesarily for the hero who may die, but for the world): we have a known process to adress Ebola (with Western-grade medecine) and still the story not over (the 'and had many children' part, obviously 90% of the story, one where being a hero but not part of the narrow frame that makes a hero): we still need to eradicate the desease.
I would say his experience fits squarely within the heroic framework.
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this comment. It took me back to High School English class, in a good way. There's so much dumb discussion online, about these people and many others, about who deserves to be called a "hero". You're the first one I've seen to actually lay it out in a sensible and reasonably objective manner.
If he was a doctor in AIDS ward, and got infected with HIV while caring for other sick patients, wouldn't he be considered a hero? He is a missionary doctor oversea, working in some of the poorest countries in the world, clearly not doing for the money. Believe it or not, people have been called heroes for doing a lot less than that.
Why is contraction of the virus implied as a necessary condition for being a hero? Clearly the heroic act is the treatement of others; that the hypothetical AIDS doctor or these ebola doctors contracted the disease they were treating in others should not be a necessary condition for considering them heroes.
It isn't; it's the risk of doing so that one willingly runs which makes one a hero. Since we don't see these peole at work the fact of contracting it is an indirect proof of hands-on activity.
Nothing the GP said implied it was necessary, merely sufficient.
Believe it or not, people have been called heroes for doing a lot less than that.
Sure. It seems in the U.S. that all you have to do to be a "hero" is enlist in the army.
Yes. Going to work as a bond trader in downtown Manhattan on 9/11/2001 did at one point meet the criteria for being called a hero.
From the article:
I wouldn't have been in Liberia in the first place, but if I had been, I would've been on the first plane out as soon as I even heard a rumor about an Ebola outbreak. He could have--the U.S. is aggressive in helping American citizens evacuate from situations like that. The fact he stayed and helped is what makes him a hero.
It's probably the "travel overseas to treat a deadly disease that has a history of killing lots of healthcare workers in shitty conditions" part.