blog.bioethics.net

It's been going around for a while - before this advert - that Fox doesn't take his medications. (The YouTube comments thread is full of people talking about it.) So, given that, I can see why people would wonder if he didn't take his meds in order to show what Parkinson's is actually like. More commonly, I've heard that he doesn't take meds because he doesn't like the resulting side effects... if, as the Crooks & Liars post indicates, that is the side effects of the medications, it also seems understandable.
The truly despicable thing is suggesting that he's faking it in order to gain votes and sympathies. Anyone who's followed Fox's battle with Parkinson's knows how hard he fought to not reveal his illness and to not have his life taken over by some constant sideshow of pity parties.

- by Kelly on Oct 24, 2006 at 6:14 AM | link

Art: He did not do that. He said Fox didn't take his medication prior to filming so that his symptoms would show. That's not the same thing as saying he faked it. And today, he read from Fox's book in which the tv star admitted doing just that to illustrate the difficulties of Parkinson's.
And while we are on the topic, Fox is very deceptive in the ad since Talent opposes creating a constitutional right to SCNT in MO (Amendment 2). That is not the same as "criminalizing" stem cell research. Nor is his former support for Brownback.
As you have written, SCNT creates embryos. Wanting to outlaw this form of human cloning is not synonymous with outlawing stem cell research.
Facts, Art, please. Not spin.

- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 24, 2006 at 3:53 PM | link

So, if Rush is this huge racist, why is it that you have to go back a few years and pull the McNabb story up? Why, you should have something from today's show.
It's not like someone putting a person's skin color over their ability is a common occurance. /sarcasm
That ad is one big lie, which is where Rush spent most of his time. If Fox wants to enter the political arena, and lie about the facts of stem cell research in Missouri, then he'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences.

- by Steve on Oct 24, 2006 at 11:32 PM | link

Wesley
Rush had the nerve to say he went off his meds to gain sympathy for his plight. What a crock. You can defend this kind of attack if you want but I would respectfully suggest that it ain't convincing.
Of course he would go off his meds. So would Rush if he wanted to show the effects of detoxing from Oxycontin.
Rush is getting ripped far and wide and rightly so. When a person has a disease and is willing to be humiliated in showing his loss of bodily control to urge support for all forms of stem cell research then those who oppose such funding ought remain silent--not sneer at the man and suggest he is faking, posing or acting.

- by arthur caplan on Oct 25, 2006 at 1:32 AM | link

Wesley:
Furthermore, although Fox does go off his medications (and really, I don't know a single person with a chronic illness who doesn't take medication breaks whenever possible), enough people - neurologists - have weighed in to say that the effects seen are not those of someone NOT taking the medications (witness Jim Fossett's latest post here) that it's clear all Limbaugh is doing is trying to undermine the power of the advertisement, because of it being so damned effective.
Furthermore, it's complete and utter bull to suggest that there's something wrong with someone for not taking medications. All that does it undermine the fact that there is a stigma to having chronic illness, especially a chronic, not well managed illness. As if Fox suddenly suffers less, just because the medications give a different round of issues that require coping with? As if it's not THAT big a deal to have Parkinson's, so long as you can cover it up and pass acceptibly well?
Medication should be a choice, not an obligation - and people should not be dragged out and accused of attempting to gain sympathy because of their personal decisions.
(All of which is moot, if we opt to believe those who're more in the know, who say that Fox is showing the effect of the drugs on top of the disease.)
Limbaugh is attempting to slander Fox because it's an effective advert, no more, no less. It's not charitable to stand up for Limbaugh. (And if you want to say Caplan shouldn't be pulling up McNabb, then Limbaugh sure as hell shouldn't be pulling up a reference to a book written several years back, either.)

- by Kelly on Oct 25, 2006 at 2:45 AM | link

But he didn't say he was faking his symptoms, which is what you accused Rush of having done.
Those ripping Rush are those for Amendment 2 and cloning research. It doesn't matter. The bloom is off the rose. The ad has lost its effectiveness because people can see the strings being pulled or the man behind the curtain--choose your metaphor.
The good news is that there are now cadres of truth squads keeping all sides honest in these debates. Once the political types figure that out, I hope and believe we will have more honest political campaigns and debates. And that will be good for democracy.
Saw the story about you on Bioedge, Art. You are right. You are a quick study and are good at what you do.

- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 25, 2006 at 3:29 AM | link

Arthur - you aren't making sense. If Fox went off his meds to show what *unmedicated* Parkinson's looks like, and says that is what he is doomed to without embroyonic stem cell research, then that is deceptive. Because he has the option of going back on the dang meds. A better case would be made if he could say that the way he appears is the best-case scenario with all that current medical technology can do for him.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Oct 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM | link

I think that it has been well established that Michael J. Fox was not "Faking" or "Acting" or whatever term that Limbaugh decided to use, to attack someone with a terminal, degenerative disease. It is abvious to any thinking individual that Michael J. Fox was desperately and bravely pleading for research needed to save his life, and the lives of others like him (regardless of the politics of the research). The only thing I am absolutely amazed about is that a loud-mouthed, arrogant idiot like Rush Limbaugh, who has proven time and time again that he is out of control and completely ignorant, is allowed to assail the public with his ill-advised diatribes. When is it going to stop? Is there any attempt being made to FIRE him, and take away his broadcasting license? He is a hopeless fool, and he needs to take his soap-box antics to the sidewalk, with the rest of his ilk.

- by Denise on Oct 25, 2006 at 10:48 PM | link

I just heard a soundbite of Fox saying his symptoms were caused by too MUCH medication. If true, and if he did that on purpose, would THAT qualify as deceptive?

- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 26, 2006 at 3:48 PM | link

He most certainly DID say that Michael J. Fox was ACTING. And he physically mocked the syptoms. He goes on to say how he's being exploited as if he's a retarded child. Many others have chimed in with this "he's being exploited!" line as if he is not an adult who can make a decision about his support or non support for this research. There is no defending Rush Limbaugh on this and I can't believe anyone would try regardless of where one stands on stem-cell research.

- by stroll on Oct 27, 2006 at 10:15 PM | link

If you listen to Rush, rather than what others say about Rush, you will know he wasn't physically mocking the symptoms when he was describing them.
And his main points have been on the pure explicit and implicit deceptions in the fox ads--such as "stem cell" research, by which he tries to mean ES cells, offers great hope for Alzheimer's. What is it Dr. McCay said about allowing people to believe ESCells will offer a cure for Alzheimer's? Oh yes, "People need a fairy tale."

- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 29, 2006 at 1:11 AM | link

Denise: "The only thing I am absolutely amazed about is that ... Rush Limbaugh ... is allowed to assail the public with his ill-advised diatribes. When is it going to stop? Is there any attempt being made to FIRE him, and take away his broadcasting license?"
Denise, he is self-employed, and would have to fire himself. But as to taking away his broadcasting license because YOU are offended by what he says, even though his many listeners clearly aren't ... are you sure you want to go that route? It might be demagogues you agree with who are the next targets.
Art: If he went off his meds, OR if he overmedicated, to make his ad more emotionally appealing, that stinks. And he's now insisting that he's "not a victim". So then, what was the point of the ad in the first place? Please.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Oct 29, 2006 at 6:12 PM | link

"If you listen to Rush, rather than what others say about Rush, you will know he wasn't physically mocking the symptoms when he was describing them."
Oh, I did one better than listen - I watched. I watched Rush say his vile little diatribe, as he shook and jerked and spasmed around his desk. And then he laughed. Personally, that goes pretty high on my list of what it means to mock.

- by Kelly on Nov 1, 2006 at 10:22 PM | link

At least now we know what his problem is--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOo7S0DvM8
Rush makes me so angry--I love this vid.

- by larry on Nov 2, 2006 at 2:41 AM | link