Not much surprise that all the body-based reality was kept hidden. Is
that not what rehabilitation culture taught us? in the 50-70 ? As far as I
can tell we in this day and age still do it.
Maria
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:12 PM
Subject: Some new quotes re: JFK
> 'I was with JFK for 11 years, Mr. Sorensen said in an interview, "and
> for so many of those I was trying to refute, rebut rumors that he was
> suffering from this disability or that, and that's why as a general
> rule, if those medical files were placed in the library under very
> restrictive conditions by the family, as the family's nominee, I just
> couldn't agree that they would be opened to any Tom, DIck or Harry
> because I knew a bunch of them would seek to exploit them"
>
> "In JFK File, Hidden Illness, Pain and Pills", by Lawrence K. Altman &
> Todd S. Purdim, New York Times, Sunday Nov. 17, 2002, pp 1 & 26.
>
> Earlier in the article:
>
> "While not aware of the exact details of my brother's medical condition,
> Mr. (Ed) Kennedy said, 'I did see the great courage he exhibited
> throughout his life in triumphing over illness and pain."
>
> A pre-emptive remark on his part? Don't ask Ted why he never disclosed
> this stuff after 1963. He didn't know his brother's medical condition.
> Reminds me of the golfer Casey Martin who (as quoted in the book that's
> not his autobiography) said his own brother of nearly the same age
> living in the same small house, and often golfing with him, had no idea
> what his leg disability put him through in terms of daily routines which
> took much time for being upside-down to drain the swelling, getting the
> elastic surgical stocking on, etc.; or Eleanor Roosevelt apparently
> being a bit distant from the everyday facts of FDR's disability, as
> suggested by her reportedly fleeing in tears when he showed her he'd
> trained himself to be able to crawl to his (separate) bedroom door, in
> case of a fire in the White House,)
>
> continuing:
>
> "Mr. Dallek first sought permission to examine the records three years
> ago. The committee that controls them is led by Burke Marshall, 80, a
> former Justice Dept. official under Robert F. Kennedy. The other
> members are Mr. Sorensen, 74, and Samuel Beer, 90, an emeritus professor
> of government at Harvard.
>
> Mr. Marshall and Professor Beer favored granting Mr. Dallek's request,
> he said, but Mr. Sorensen was reluctant."
>
> later;
>
> "'If true, he had remarkably washed out bones at an early age', Dr.
> Kelman said. X-rays in the new files showed spinal fractures and metal
> screws in the vertebrae (my note: Is that from the very innovative
> operation he had?). This is especially intriguing because Kennedy's
> autopsy report found 'no significant gross skeletal abnormalities'".....
>
> the article's end:
>
> "... Schlesinger Jr., the historian and Kennedy aide wrote in "A
> Thousand days" that he asked Kennedy in 1958 about Addison's and was
> told "No one who has the real Addison's disease should run for the
> presidency, but I do not have it."
>
> "In an interview this week, Mr. Schlesinger, 85 (my note: the
> family-favored historian), said that Kennedy 'did draw a distinction
> between true Addison's and broadly construed Addison's', but that he did
> not know why. (My comment- article elsewhere says Addison's was
> associated with TB. But no record shows him being tested for TB; one of
> may things suggesting these records are still grossly incomplete.) He
> said he had never been aware of the president's pain, except when he had
> been unable to pick up his children, for example. 'I mean, he never
> uttered a word of self-pity or complaint,' Mr. Schlesinger said.
> Indeed, in one of his most famous presidential epigrams, Kennedy
> declared in 1963 "Life is unfair." Most citations omit the words that
> followed, 'Some people are sick, and others are well.'"
>
>
> >>From paragraph 5:
>
> "The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments
> and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is
> a remarkable example of a phenomenon seen many times, notably in the
> case of Franklin D. Roosevelt."
>
> On page one is a news photo (credit: Lynn Pelham, TImepix) of JFK being
> hoisted on a crane with a sort of tent on it, up to the door of his
> plane which otherwise is entered by a rolling staircase. Perhaps this
> was before airports had those telescoping bridges to go to the planes?)
> Caption: "President John F. Kennedy had to be hoisted aboard Air Force
> One in 1961. He was known to have back pain, but his ills were more
> extensive."
>
> One suspects that one day this picture will appear in some DS text next
> to one of FDR speaking at a campaign stop from his car on a stage with a
> car-ramp added to it.
>
> On page 26 another picture printed much larger than the others, shows
> him using crutches to walk from his limo to a boat, (credit: Associated
> Press, 1961).
>
> --
>
> I think the December Atlantic magazine isn't the first one to publish
> some of this disability-related info. I seem to recall in Sept? either
> Atlantic or Harper's published something that mentioned that JFK had to
> be carried up the 2 steps to get into his surgeon's office in New York.
> I think this was from another new book that's recently out (Robert
> Dallek's book isn't out until next year). And it had info on how this
> was very radical new surgery, he was warned against it by more
> mainstream doctors; he was warned it might make him more disabled
> (enough that it would be plainly visible; presumably a career-ender) and
> that his decision to get the operation was thus said to have been
> perceived by him as risking all for a small physical benefit, (but a
> large career-preservation benefit).
>
> --
>
> Oh, BTW, on the television show "The West Wing", the president's
> invisible impairment topic was framed as one of his refusal to disclose
> it until he had no choice because others had found out. Not as a
> question of public atitudes alone. And he does win re-election. The
> issue comes up before a re-election vote, meaning that presumably he was
> planning to stall until at least after the voters would no longer ever
> again have a crack at him. (After FDR's having been elected 4 times,
> presidents are now limited to 2 terms). I didn't see every episode, but
> it was about his job's extraordinary duty to disclose things, vs. his
> stalling; i.e., at least in the story's partisan political terms, a
> dishonesty issue. None of that pesky complexity stuff like "The pubic
> saw it, but they didn't see it".
>
> So if you do the pity-rejecting stoic thing, they can hit you with
> "dishonesty". If you're honest, they may hit you with the other stuff.
> One suspects the whole discussion will devolve into "Nobody's lying and
> none of this indicates an ableist social context, because it depends on
> what you mean by 'disability'."
>
> The context is also entangled with sexuality (the full medical record
> reportedly including treatment for VD as a very young man; which
> wouldn't have worked for a candidate in 1960 which was at a peak period
> for family-type conformity in the US), which even harkens back to rumors
> about FDR having not Polio as he said but instead some sort of paralysis
> from alleged VD. Which may place FRD's famous doctor's letter certfying
> his health, which he sent to party leaders all over the country before
> the nominating convention, in a slightly different light.
>
> Plus ca change.
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|