Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This is the glossary for the book NO ORDINARY TIME:



Note: This thread is NOT non spoiler; so if you do not want the storyline revealed; please do not read further.

Referring to Mercer/FDR affair:

There is also a reference in this write-up that FDR changed his will when Missy LeHand had a stroke; he left half of his trust to taking care of LeHand until her death and the other half to Eleanor with the stipulation that upon Missy's death that the allocation revert back totally to Eleanor.

This is a pretty interesting tidbit:

I guess FDR could get folks dander up.

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

I found this very interesting correspondence on Scribd:

FDR and Harvey Cushing

It seems that FDR's son married Cushing's daughter. And he was very young when he first became engaged. The correspondence between FDR and Cushing is very humorous and tells alot about both men. The exchange seems to tell a lot about FDR's mother too (lol).

When Betsey Cushing was introduced to Sara Delano Roosevelt (FDRs mother and James' grandmother); the following exchange took place.

"I understand your father is a surgeon. Surgeons remind me of my butcher."

I am surprised that this did not stop the wedding.

Check out the title to this article while you are at it.



Cushing was no ordinary man either; being the father of neurosurgery.

Wikipedia:



Cushing's name is commonly associated with his most famous discovery - Cushing's disease.

In 1912 he reported in a study an endocrinological syndrome caused by a malfunction of the pituitary gland which he termed "polyglandular syndrome".

He published his findings in 1932, as "The Basophil Adenomas of the Pituitary Body and Their Clinical Manifestations pituitary Basophilism".

Cushing was also awarded the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography for a book recounting the life of one of the fathers of modern medicine, Sir William Osler. In 1930, Cushing was awarded the Lister Medal for his contributions to surgical science.

As part of the award, he delivered the Lister Memorial Lecture at the Royal College of Surgeons of England in July 1930.

In 1988, the United States Postal Service issued a 45 cent postage stamp in his honor, as part of the Great Americans series.

MEMORIAL FOR CUSHING:

The First 100 Days: Harry Truman Showed Decisiveness and Intelligence





Anthony J. Badger

BTW: This post is here because of a response to Vince's post regarding FDR's Vice Presidential choices.

Yes Liz..the glossary is always NOT non spoiler for those who want to discuss and post items for everyone to see that might reveal the story line.

Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site:

Regarding Breckinridge Long:



Books Referenced:

Robert Dallek

Joseph P. Lash

Here is a podcast that may be of interest to some.

FDR and the Holocaust: A Podcast Interview With Author Robert N. Rosen
By Intrepid Liberal Journal



Very sad commentary. The above has a podcast Liz with Rosen who you cited.

NNDB:

Bentley wrote: "The First 100 Days: Harry Truman Showed Decisiveness and Intelligence


..."

Thanks Bentley

I am a fan of Truman. As the article you reference notes the inner circle knew of Roosevelt's health problems and one would have thought that Roosevelt - having chosen well - would have more included Truman in the administation especially if he was thought of as a hard worker.

I was hover more concerned in a way about Wallace who raised so much disruption in the convention - especially with Farley seeming to be more capable and possibly available.

Yes Vince I see your point.

Hi folks

there is in today#s New Sorry I am not at my computer nad cannot give you the link but the site is

Hello folks - the front page of today's NY times science section has this article on Roosevelt and health and cause of death

January 5, 2010
The Doctor's World
For F.D.R. Sleuths, New Focus on an Odd Spot
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt died unexpectedly on April 12, 1945, in Warm Springs, Ga., the White House lost no time announcing a cause of death.

The 63-year-old president, the shocked and grieving nation was told, had died of cerebral hemorrhage. (“Last Words,� read a front-page headline in The New York Times: � ‘I Have a Terrific Headache.� �)

That Roosevelt died of a stroke is undisputed. But what caused it is a medical mystery that has persisted to this day, a mystery heightened by the secrecy in which he, his aides and his doctors always insisted on shrouding his health.

Now a new book � “F.D.R.’s Deadly Secret,� by a neurologist, Dr. Steven Lomazow, and a journalist, Eric Fettmann (PublicAffairs) � revives an intriguing theory.

Look closely at Roosevelt’s portraits over his 12-year presidency. In his first two terms, there is a dark spot over his left eyebrow. It seems to grow and then mysteriously vanishes sometime around 1940, leaving a small scar.

Was the spot a harmless mole? Or a cancerous melanoma that spread to contribute to, or even cause, his death? Melanomas, after all, are known for causing strokes from bleeding when they spread to the brain.

This hypothesis is not new. In 1979, Dr. Harry S. Goldsmith, then a surgeon at Dartmouth, wrote a widely publicized medical journal article focusing attention on the possibility that the spot was a melanoma. (I wrote an article about it at the time.) In 2007, after more medical sleuthing, Dr. Goldsmith published a book, “A Conspiracy of Silence� (iUniverse), fleshing out the theory.

What is different in the new book is the categorical claim that the killer was melanoma that “metastasized to his brain, causing the growing tumor that would take Roosevelt’s life a mere six weeks later.�

But no matter how confidently the authors may assert it, the claim is still speculation � unproved and far from convincing.

Roosevelt’s death was shocking in part because the White House and his doctors had kept secret how sick he was. For example, though it was widely known that he had developed polio in 1921 at age 39, he and his aides disguised the fact that he could not walk unaided and used heavy metal braces to stand on paralyzed, withered legs. He used a wheelchair and demanded that photographers not show his disabilities.

His terminal illness came during wartime, and in an era when leaders� health and other personal matters were considered strictly private.

With rare exceptions, journalists were complicit. They did not probe the obvious clues they saw as the president’s appearance deteriorated.

Over his last year, for instance, he lost about 30 pounds. His doctors attributed it to a poor appetite from a prescribed diet; Dr. Lomazow and Mr. Fettmann contend he became scrawny from a spreading melanoma.

The authors point out that Turner Catledge, then a Washington correspondent for The New York Times and later its executive editor, did not report how awful Roosevelt looked during an interview at the White House in 1944, months before his nomination to an unprecedented fourth term.

Roosevelt was gaunt and glassy-eyed, Catledge wrote many years later; his jaw drooped, and he lost his train of thought. Others witnessed similar episodes; in an interview, Dr. Lomazow attributed them to a type of seizure often associated with strokes.

Roosevelt’s cardiologist, Dr. Howard G. Bruenn, certified that he died of a cerebral hemorrhage from longstanding arteriosclerosis. Only in 1970 did Bruenn disclose in a medical journal article that for many years the president’s blood pressure was dangerously high. Available records show that it had risen to 230/126 in 1944, from 128/82 in 1930, which would have contributed to heart failure. A reading moments before he died was 300/190.

Even then, doctors knew that chronic high blood pressure (hypertension) and arteriosclerosis were a potentially lethal combination that could cause heart disease and strokes. That became the standard and most plausible explanation for Roosevelt’s stroke.

The speculation about a melanoma cannot be verified because there was no autopsy and no known biopsy, and most of Roosevelt’s medical records disappeared shortly after his death from a safe in the United States Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md.

In their public accounts and the few surviving medical records, his doctors never suggested that they performed a biopsy to determine whether he had any form of cancer. (Even during his lifetime there were rumors that he had prostate cancer.)

Franklin Roosevelt was hardly the only president to bend the truth, if not lie, to hide his illnesses from the public. Thirteen years before Roosevelt took office, President Woodrow Wilson, in his second term, had a paralyzing stroke; Wilson’s wife and aides kept that fact hidden from the public while they took over the running of the government.

Fortunately, recent decades have yielded vast changes in medical practice and in perceptions of the public’s right to know about a political leader’s health. But Roosevelt’s ailments must still be viewed in the context of the times.

In the 1930s and �40s, doctors had none of the now-standard blood pressure drugs like strong diuretics, beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. They paid far less attention than they do now to moles suspected of being melanomas; even if they had such suspicions, it is inconceivable that the spot over Roosevelt’s eye would have drawn the kind of attention focused during the 2008 presidential campaign on the extensive surgery for the most serious of Senator John McCain’s four melanomas.

Why did Roosevelt’s spot vanish after 1940? Melanomas rarely regress on their own. But did his? Was the spot removed for a biopsy? Or for cosmetic reasons? Despite the assertions in “F.D.R.’s Deadly Secret,� the answers are unknown.

Even in the 1940s, some Washington insiders claimed that Roosevelt knew he was seriously ill, if not dying, when he ran for his final term, and that was one of the reasons he dumped his vice president, Henry A. Wallace, from the Democratic ticket in favor of Harry S. Truman. But most historians say he picked Truman for political reasons, not for his qualifications.

In July 1944, Dr. Frank H. Lahey, a nationally prominent surgeon in Boston, consulted in Roosevelt’s case. In a memorandum to the record that was made public largely through Dr. Goldsmith’s efforts, Dr. Lahey said he told Roosevelt’s White House physician, Adm. Ross T. McIntire, that he doubted Roosevelt’s capacity to survive another term. But the memorandum did not mention cancer: it focused on the president’s failing heart.

Dr. Lomazow and Mr. Fettmann contend that McIntire would certainly have told the president he had cancer. This is not clear; in that era doctors often withheld the word “cancer� from patients with any form of the disease.

The authors build on a 2007 paper by Dr. Barron H. Lerner that challenged a 1970 account by Bruenn, Roosevelt’s cardiologist, of the president’s illness and death. Like Dr. Lerner, Dr. Lomazow contends that the account, which has been considered definitive, was incomplete.

One reason is that Bruenn did not mention problems like the vanished eyebrow spot and the blood transfusions that Roosevelt needed to help correct a severe anemia in 1941. McIntire attributed the anemia to bleeding hemorrhoids; Dr. Lomazow contends it was something more serious.

After McIntire’s death in 1959, Dr. Lomazow said, “it fell upon� Bruenn to protect Roosevelt’s wishes to keep his health problems secret. A British physician, Dr. Hugh L’Etang, was about to publish a paper suggesting that Roosevelt might have had melanoma, Dr. Lomazow said.

Also, he said, the Roosevelt family wanted Bruenn’s cooperation in documenting that the president had been mentally capable during the Allies� end-of-war conference at Yalta in February 1945. During the cold war, detractors had taken to calling him “the sick man at Yalta� and saying Stalin had taken advantage of him.

“F.D.R.’s Deadly Secret� adds to the many accounts of how the president deceived the public about his health. Challenging the conventional wisdom is admirable. But adopting an alternative theory as fact requires convincing evidence that is lacking in this book.

In some places the book is inexcusably confusing. In making a point in one place, the authors say it is speculative; but the same point in another sentence is stated as fact.

For example, journalists reported that Roosevelt departed a number of times from the prepared text when he spoke to Congress after returning from Yalta. The authors of “F.D.R.’s Deadly Secret� examined short film clips and deduced that he had a defect in his left visual fields known as a hemianopia. Although the authors say it is usually from a stroke, they state flatly that the visual deficit was “caused by a metastatic brain tumor.�

The authors say that though it is unclear whether Roosevelt’s doctors fully understood the nature of this postulated deficit, “they certainly knew that the president’s lesion was malignant and had metastasized.� The book says the abdominal pains Roosevelt experienced in his last year were “caused by the cancer that had metastasized to his bowel.� What is the proof?

In an interview, Dr. Lomazow acknowledged the inconsistencies.

“That is a fair criticism of the way the book is written,� he said. “The book goes back and forth, and if it led you to believe that this is incontrovertible absolute evidence, then you are correct and I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.�

Some of the confusion, he said, may stem from the authors� and the publisher’s failure to cross-check what they wrote.

Dr. Goldsmith, the author of the 1979 article raising the possibility that Roosevelt had a melanoma, now says that after further research he doubts that was what killed him.

Roosevelt could have died from a stroke from his high blood pressure and also had a melanoma and prostate cancer. But without additional records, it is impossible to be definitive about the cause of death.

Regardless, his death and its aftermath make one thing clear: All presidents and their doctors should make full disclosures about their health. As long as crucial facts are kept secret, theories, conspiracies and hype may tarnish their image and long outlive them.

A melanoma..well that is a fascinating article Vince. It is amazing in fact that they are still talking about this now.

Very interesting. Question: The article seemed to be written on the premise that the public has a right to know all about a public leader's health. E.g. "Fortunately, recent decades have yielded vast changes in medical practice and in perceptions of the public’s right to know about a political leader’s health." Do we? It seems to me that at some point there should be some privacy. I'm trying to work through where I think that point should be, because obviously some things should be public.

That is a fascinating thought Elizabeth...the privacy act for your personal health information. I think I feel that there should be some privacy.

There is currently a privacy act in place for your medical and other personal health information - it's called the Health Insurance and Portability Act, or HIPPA. However, I don't believe that it was meant to cover public figures. Don't forget that privacy laws become eroded when you apply them to public figures. U.S. courts have taken that approach for a long time.

Yes..Sera..that was the act I was referencing in message 18. But how much does the public have the right to know. For example, let us assume that a president may have lost his mother and father in a car accident or a child or a spouse and was depressed for a period of time...but was fine in terms of life decisions etc. But sought counseling to help deal with the grief.

Does that make him or her unfit for the presidency. And should something as minor as that episode come out.

That is a great example, Bentley. I sometimes wonder if there are people who would make excellent leaders who choose not to enter the public eye because they don't want their prostate (for example) discussed on the evening news.

Elizabeth..I have thought the very same thing.

I believe this is the book Vince is talking about. I just saw it at Barnes and Noble this afternoon. "FDR's Deadly Secret" by Steven Lomazow


Steven Lomazow

Hmmm...looks very interesting..another add.

I did not read this whole discussion board because I am (unfortunately) not very far in the book. But I got the last few posts on my e-mail updates and wanted to comment. I too thought that the public was too intrusive in public figures lives. When Ted Kennedy first collapsed and they said that he was fine it was obvious to my medical colleagues and I that they were "shading the facts" because the story didn't jive. But how awful if your family found out you had a seizure from brain cancer from camera people camped outside the hospital coffee bar.

However, I found it frightening when I saw an excellent (at least I thought it was) documentary on JFK on the history channel. It talks about his medical condition and the fact that he wasn't sharing with anyone (his staff, his white house doctors, even RFK) the full truth about his physical condition.

I agree that many people don't know where to draw the line in terms of people's health. However there are too many people who don't admit what substances do to decision making processes. JFK was basically addicted to pain medication and handling major deciaions. Also he could have had weird mental processes due to interactions of medications due to his doctors not knowing the full truth. Of course some would say that is a reason we (the public) should not have the right to intrude, I guess.

Niki so true about poor Ted Kennedy...it has always been protocol to let the family know first what is going on.

I guess I see both sides of the argument. You being a physician..can easily see and understand the ramifications of the interactions of medication. I guess I can understand his doctor knowing but not the public.

I guess I am one who believes that the public is not entitled to knowing everything there is to know about someone. And of course can you imagine what those camera people would have done...they would have been johnny on the spot calling the Kennedy family members, telling them the circumstances and then asking them what their reaction was. Of course so uncalled for.

Certain jobs are different than others & being an elected official is one of them I think

When I first started to read corporate proxy forms I was surprised to see that virtually all Board of Director nominees had age included

Well that does make a differenfcre - experience - whether they have 20 years left to go to a competot etc

I think the public has a need to understand the health of a nominee - for example Sarah Palin was probably more likely from vp to succeed to pres with John McCain running than would have been the case with Romney - so reasonable questions can be asked

Just my thought

Yes..I agree but then what is reasonable and what is not is the problem. Some folks think that if you are a public person and/or a celebrity or a president for that matter that your life is no longer your own. I guess I find that hard to believe.

In the case of Sarah Palin which you mention...in combination with the age of John McCain...I hear what you are saying. But would you have been more inclined to vote for that ticket if McCain was 50? I guess that could have been a possibility for some..but the mere decision of choosing such a candidate as your running mate who is a complete unknown simply for the sake of trying to win the women's vote certainly backfired.

That was the first major decision he made.

On the show West Wing, they had such a circumstance even though it was a tv show and fictional. Bartlett, the President, covered up the fact that he had MS even though it was in remission. There was fall out for that decision.

I can certainly see both your points. I agree with you both but also feel conflicted. In favor of the privacy argument I think the majority of the public gets such misinformation (and then it is perpetuated) that they don't understand most illness. It reminds me of the fact that we don't find out most of the national security bulletins. We wouldn't be able to appreciate them or comprehend them. Most people feel if you are young and thin you are will live a long time and if you are older and heavy you won't but that is not the case much of the time. I know plenty of 40-50 year-olds I would not be surprised to hear had a heart attack (I guess that doesn't say much for my doctoring does it - grin). 60% of deadly heart attacks happen in people with no history of heart disease or high cholesterol. And one of the things I appreciate so much about history is that you find so often it was the right combination of people in the right place at the right time. If JFK or FDR hadn't struggled with their health would they have been who they were? The person who was meant to make that action in that moment. I guess you can't what if.

Niki...I really appreciate your commentary and especially agree with your statement:

Niki said: "If JFK or FDR hadn't struggled with their health would they have been who they were? The person who was meant to make that action in that moment. I guess you can't what if."

So so true.

Niki, I know what you mean about frustration that people have such misinformation about illnesses. I have Type I diabetes, and I seldom hear anything about diabetes on the news that doesn't need to be corrected.

Yes Elizabeth..you raise a personal anecdote. If you were running for president..I believe that this should not stop you; nor do I believe that the general public is entitled to this information if you did.

Just because you are president or a presidential candidate, I do not feel that your medical records should become a best seller or on the evening news. I guess that is what I have a problem with.

Bentley

Bentley wrote: "Yes..I agree but then what is reasonable and what is not is the problem. Some folks think that if you are a public person and/or a celebrity or a president for that matter that your life is no lon..."

Yes Bartlett for Pres!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes Vince...I liked him too. You are making me laugh now.

I agree. Do you think we can make it so that the media only gets the important stuff and not the unimportant stuff.?

I'll decide what's what.

(grin)

That's interesting Elizabeth because when you brought up your own health you made me consider a situation I never had thought of. I have chronic migraines which are incredibly common. It's one of the top two reasons Americans file for FMLA (the family medical leave act) from work and one in five people who go to see their doctor with a headache has them. The Migraine Brain stated that some of the most powerful and influential people in our history have had them. Yet I wonder if we would elect an official knowing he/she could be disabled for 2-3 days at a time with no advance notice and be completely unable to cope with daily life much less major decisions?


Carolyn Bernstein

Nike..message 35 made me laugh.

But you raise an interesting consideration in message 36...I think a person's medical records should be kept private,,,just look at the example you gave and how some media folks or worse could run with that one.

Sorry just looked it up because I was thinking abou it. Some of the famous people with migraines are Thomas Jefferson, Julius Caesar, Napolean, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E Lee, Mary Todd Lincoln, Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Maybe Nietzsche should have gone to a better doctor, it seemed to have soured his disposition some. ;-)

He should have gone to you...I am sure you would have made him a new man. (lol)

Aw . . . see, there you go.

I knew I like you Bentley!

(But just between the two of us and the rest of the world that can read this - nobody could fix Nietzsche if you ask me)

You are probably right Niki....some folks are beyond repair.

Finally, someone who has figured Nietzsche out, and come up with a solution for him! Even if the solution is just to decide he is beyond repair. Good diagnosis. :)

So today I watch the American Experience show on the CCC - it was really very good - watching it reminded me of the presence that FDR had when he appeared and spoke - it is avaialbe on Netflix - 3,000,000 American young men went thru that program further building a comraderie in common throughout the country. and 3,000,000 out of a group that primarily form 18 to 25 years was probably a really significant percentage of that part of the male population.

Vince...thanks for the heads up. I put it in my queue...I think it really helped the male population. Not available in streaming yet.

The FDR American Experience program is great too. That one streams.

Thanks for the video recommendations. We are setting up the Netflix instant movies option this weekend so I'll try to take a look. After football, of course :)