Fox Took "Too Much Medication?"
I just heard a sound bite of Michael J. Fox saying that the extent of his symptoms in the ads wasn't caused by going off his medication, but from "taking too much medication." If true, and if he did it on purpose, he did intend to deceive. Taking too much medication to exaggerate one's bodily symptoms for use in a deceptive and exploitive ad is shameful manipulation of the voters and, in that sense, is profoundly disrespectful of democracy.
But this is the pro cloning game plan; hype, deceive, demagogue, exploit our fixation with celebrities, and appeal strictly to the emotions. But the bloom may be off the rose.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:36 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Even if he didn't take too much of his medication on purpose, the right thing would have been to postpone taping till the uncontrollable movements calmed down. I'm trying to think of a way to explain this without declaring Fox deceitful, but I just can't.
I am beginning to lean in your direction. Also, I just did a talk show and someone called FURIOUS because his ads are partisan. He said he had been a contributor to Fox's foundation, but would no longer.
I told him that Fox's foundation was not doing the ads, but this brings up an important point: Through his deceptive and partisan activities, he may be undermining the good work he wants to do through the foundation.
Perhaps Michael J. Fox should get to know Dr. Michel Levesque, neurosurgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Dr. Levesque has used a surgical procedure involving the patient's own neural cells to reduce symptoms in at least one Parkinson's patient by over 80% for over three years following the procedure. Some neural cells are removed from the patient, modified into dopamine-producing cells and then replaced back into the patient's brain. Dr. Levesque testified regarding this procedure before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transporation on July 14, 2004.
Here's the thing: Fox's foundation has funded some good stuff. Levesque, I believe, has qualified for human trials using a patient's own brain stem cells. I wonder if Fox would fund it? It seems to have worked very well for Dennis Turner, the one patient who has had the procedure (and as I always say, one patient does not a cure make).
I am a physician who treats people with Parkinsons Disease (PD). Mr. Fox has chorea, a movement induced by the medication, levodopa, used to treat PD. People with chorea do not recognize that they are having abnormal movements. They feel they can function better with the chorea rather than the slowness of PD. Stress, such as filming a commercial, will increase the extra movements. Mr. Fox was not being deceitful by taking additional medication. This is the way people with this complication appear throughout the day. I do agree that the stem cell "cure" for neurodegenerative disorders is overstated. However I find it repulsive, that commentators will pass judgement on a person with a disability without understanding the problem. Thank you.
Dr. Leo:
I do not believe anyone has passed judgement on Mr. Fox for the fact of his disability. We may, however, question whether his uses of it are intellectually honest: testimonial or anecdotal evidence -- that is, the fact of Mr. Fox's disability and what he has to say about it -- does not make his claims about ESCR true.
Furthermore, what shall we make of this quotation from Mr. Fox's book, where he speaks of stopping his medication for the express purpose of making more of an emotional impact on people? Is this not a classic logical fallacy (the appeal to emotion) and, therefore, intellectually null?
"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."
We have it from Mr. Fox himself that he has employed this sort of manipulation before; is it any wonder that we might suspect he has employed it again, one way or another?
Respectfully,
GLF
I found Dr. Leo's comments very compelling. I think that people somehow believe that pharmaceuticals are more predictable and effective than they actually are. In other words, people seem to believe that Michael J. Fox can actually predict how he will feel, and how severe his symptoms will be, each and every time he takes a dose of a medication. I sincerely doubt that this is true. More likely, what is "too much medication" on one day might, indeed, prove to be too little, or just the right amount, on another day.
More important to me is the fact that Mr. Fox is doing what most people wouldn't dare to do: he is willing to appear in public under less than optimal conditions in order to raise awareness for this awful disease.
I wish people would stop making fun of him. In my opinion, he is a truly admirable human being.
On a related note, an article of mine, "Exploring Stem Cell Therapy Potentials," was published in "Alternative and Complementary Therapies" Magazine, a professional publication for holistic health practitioners. You may find a link to this article on my website, http://www.honestmedicine.typepad.com. It is listed on the left under "Julia Schopick's published articles."
Julia Schopick
http://www.honestmedicine.typepad.com
Dr. Leo,
I stand corrected. I dug through the literature and found evidence of what you explained, that Parkinson's patients with levodopa dyskinesia often are unaware of it. I can also imagine that the folks taping Fox were also unaware of the source of the movements. So, I take back my concerns about deceit.
That does not explain away the lack of truthfulness in his ads, though.
Well, Fox's overmedication sure added to the sensationism of the ad, which is a prime tactic of the pro cloners, and thus, I am sure no one on that side was too worried about it.
The key issue being argued about is Fox's deceptive advocacy. To fail to criticize him for intentionally creating a materially false impression--whi reflects a profound disrespect for the voters--merely because of his disability would be to condescend to him in a most inapporpriate fashion. He deserves our compassion for having fallen ill so young, not our pity.
By false impression, I meant what he said, not what he looked like.
Julia, do you see anyone making fun of Fox?
As a followup to GLF, fluctuations in moblity is a common problem for people with PD. This is a difficult aspect of the disease to understand. People with PD live with daily and even hourly fluctuations in their ability to move. Under certain circumstances the motor performance may improve dramatically. For example people with PD always move better during the physician's office visit. I have had people arise from their wheelchairs and walk down the hall, after not walking at home for several months. I've heard the comment "I should just leave him/her here" innumerable times. Motor function often improves when a person becomes angry. The opposite occurs with chorea (medication induced side effect). Was Fox dishonest in not taking med prior to Senate hearing? Perhaps, but in dealing with people with PD I can understand the logic. Observing a person for a short period of time does not reflect the impact of this disease upon their life.
My comment about political commentators was directed primarily at Rush Limbaugh. He should stick to comments about a medial condition he knows something about - prescription drug abuse.
I agree with Mr. Smith about the sensational aspect of the Fox ad. However, I must point out that the conservative side of this and any other topic does not shy away from sensationalism if it benefits the cause.
I agree with much of Mr. Smith's opinion in regards to stem cell research. While I am not directly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I agree that the potential use of this treatment is overstated. We are likely decades away from any substantial improvement in PD with the use of stem cell therapy. I respect the opinion of those who feel we should not rush into the research without considering moral implications.
This topic comes up frequently during support group meetings. I give two reasons that one should not be too optimistic about stem cell research. The first, we've been through this debate before during the first Bush adminstration concerning fetal cell implants. Dopaminergic cells were removed from the aborted fetus and placed into the brains of people with PD. The potential cure for PD was proclaimed. Demand for federal research support. However, the results did not live up to the hype and this form of therapy has largely been abandoned. Secondly, as presented to the public, this is a very simplistic approach to a complex problem. Bad cells in brain, make brain bad. Put new cells in brain, brain good. This approach will never work until we can figure out how to make sure the new neurons sypapse with other neurons in the brain. This is a very basic explanation to a complex topic. However I feel it gives a more balanced view to oppose the hype people hear from the pro (both embryonic and adult) stem cell lobby.
Post a Comment
<< Home