I saw this article yesterday and found it quite upsetting to read. Not the facts of dad's disease. Rather, the son's train of thought.
The son admits at the outset that he had not been there by dad's side for most of dad's journey. Dad insisted that son should stay in college. The son also admits that he didn't take time and effort to educate himself about CC while dad was alive. Now that dad has passed, the son has the gall to question dad's choices and motivation. I found this questioning rather arrogant.
The son wrote that dad's short survival is "an average result". The son seems to be surprised that dad failed to achieve a better outcome, despite his superior medical knowledge and connections. In my opinion, the son doesn't truly understand how devastating CC is.
The son suggests that dad's medical knowledge robbed him of Hope. Yet the facts in the article don't support this assertion. Dad grew the samples of his own tumor in lab rats, looking for the best possible treatment. Dad had a very hard time with chemo, but he continued to do it until 3 weeks before passing. That doesn't strike me as a person who lacked Hope.
Overall, this article is supposed to be a deep, thought-provoking piece that explores the relationship between Knowledge and Hope. In my opinion, the son failed rather miserably. The fact that he wasn't there day to day shows in what he wrote.
My opinion only and feel free to disagree.