Why me?

In some of the blogs we follow and in several of the autobiographies we have read, people with PD struggle with the question ‘Why me? What did I do to deserve this? Is this some kind of punishment or test?’ There is clearly a religious element to these questions, an idea of a supreme will or organizing principle that ensures we each get what is coming to us. The faithful may leap intellectual hurdles and engage in logical contortions in order to explain why their god would put them through something like Parkinson’s, and yet come up with an answer that neither satisfies nor enlightens.

Jon and I, though, are strict atheists. We are quite convinced there is no higher intelligence up there (or, indeed, down there) which takes a particular interest in us. Jon hasn’t got Parkinson’s because he’s been a bad boy, and I haven’t got a sick husband because my soul is ripe for trial by fire. So why Jon? Because shit happens, and that is essentially all there is to it.

However, there is also the scientific question ‘why me?’ which has a hard time with the idea of idiopathic Parkinson’s, i.e. the version of the disease that is not hereditary or caused by drugs. Parkinson’s without a cause? Come off it. Of course there’s a cause, we just haven’t discovered it yet. There is a great deal of research going into discovering what causes Parkinson’s-without-a-cause, with various genes being singled out as possible areas of weakness, and various chemicals suspected of being contributory triggers. This is evidently highly complicated stuff and the answer likely to be equally complex, an extreme example of Occam’s lady shaver.

A scientist in a programme we saw explained that he and his colleagues think the answer involves some people being genetically vulnerable to developing Parkinson’s, but that they only actually become ill if the disease is sparked off by some outside influence – in other words, he said, ‘genes load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger’. Finding out what causes Parkinson’s would evidently be immensely helpful in the effort to prevent or cure the disease, instead of being stuck with just treating it as we are now.

Scientists are, in one important sense at least, professional optimists. They have to find financial support for their research projects by convincing superiors and research councils and charitable foundations that their work will lead to significant advances towards some desirable goal. I suspect this could be the real reason that every book about Parkinson’s we have ever read, no matter when it was published, predicts that we are only about five years away from a major breakthrough in treatment or cure. Sooner or later it will be true. Wouldn’t it be great if that turns out to be 4 ½ years ago?