I awoke Wednesday morning to the controversy over conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s comments about actor Michael J. Fox.
Now, I try to refrain from putting too much energy into what Limbaugh says. Political leanings aside, I’ve seen and heard enough about his ancient past to believe that of the two people mentioned above, only one is a full-time actor these days.
But even in the context of his patently partisan entertainment efforts, Limbaugh took a step over the line this week when he insisted that Fox’s recent ad supporting a pro-stem-cell research Missouri Congressional candidate was dishonest and exploited Fox’s Parkinson’s disease diagnosis by embellishing Fox’s symptoms for sympathy the cause wouldn’t otherwise get.
“He’s exaggerating the effects of this disease,” Limbaugh said, in part. “He’s moving all around and shaking, and it’s purely an act.”
The ad indeed shows a wildly shaking and swaying Fox giving his endorsement on the grounds that the candidate in question supports continued stem-cell research with new stem-cell lines. Her incumbent opponent follows the Bush administration stance that research should only be permitted with existing lines that most scientists say don’t allow them to use their full potential to help treat or cure diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
What Limbaugh saw in that ad that seems to have so offended his sensibilities was a scary portrayal of a disease that could possibly be helped by rigorous stem-cell research. Scary it was — and not just because some who see it will be sufficiently shocked to reconsider their views on the issue of stem-cell research and the political candidates who would severely restrict it. And also not merely because the conservatives who are Limbaugh’s audience might be afraid of its impact on a Congressional race.
The really scary part was for those watching who remember Fox in his 20s and 30s: a strong, compact guy who always seemed glib and in control — even when his characters weren’t. This guy wasn’t in control of anything — except the words he was trying, valiantly, to speak. He wasn’t strong enough to stop his hands shaking. He even oddly took up more space, as his body swayed and jerked from side to side.
But even more scary than that is to imagine yourself, your mother or father, your significant other, your child, with those symptoms.
Limbaugh — and probably quite a few other people in this country — clearly need some education about Parkinson’s.
My grandmother suffered with this disease for nearly a decade and died from complications from it. I spent the last two years of her life caring for her on a daily basis, and I saw her before she took her medication, when the medication needed to be adjusted and when she was nearly normal after taking her medication.
Indeed, before she died a decade ago, her symptoms were roughly similar to those Fox displays in the advertisement in question. Her hands shook uncontrollably. She swayed or weaved even when seated, and she had a very hard time walking — even with a walker — because her body moved suddenly, outside her control, from moment to moment, meaning she could never tell if her feet would end up where they were supposed to be when they touched the ground.
Her speech deteriorated, became slurred at times and simply shaking at others. Always a forceful and passionate mind, if immensely plainspoken, she struggled to ask for basic needs when her symptoms were at their worst.
The worst times were when her medication had worn off — first thing in the morning. And sometimes, her medication just didn’t work as well as it should. Stress also made things worse. And the stress of trying to manage daily life with Parkinson’s was sometimes enough to put her on the verge of tears.
She was used to taking care of others. She had managed two rambunctious boys as a young widow during World War II. She’d cared periodically for five grandchildren. And she’d taken care of my step-grandfather as he reached into his 90s with a hip replacement and failing eyesight. But, after decades of health problems that she’d always managed to deal with, she was debilitated by Parkinson’s. It made her frustrated and angry, but she rarely complained to anyone but her doctor.
It was with that in mind that I’ve watched both Muhammad Ali and Michael J. Fox deal with this disease — both developing symptoms at a much younger age and in better health, and Fox while still very much in the prime of his life. And I’ve sorrowed for them and their families as I’ve watched them both deteriorate, as Parkinson’s patients inevitably do over time. No medication can stop that — at least no medication and no treatment we have available now.
I’ve seen Michael J. Fox at some of his better moments and at some when he could barely speak or move in any controllable fashion. I have no doubts he takes his medication on an average day and has, at times, not taken it on time when he wants to show people how devastating and debilitating this disease really is.
And I have no problems with that. Nor has he denied that he’s done that — in fact, he’s admitted it on more than one occasion, including while testifying before Congress about the need for stem-cell research funding.
This is not an act or “acting” — what it is is showing people what they really need to see to understand how difficult Parkinson’s is for the people who have it and their families, and how important research funding and clearances are.
You can’t understand this without seeing Parkinson’s sufferers while they’re off their medication. And you can’t understand what it’s like to deal with its impact when you have a young, attractive actor who exhibits only minimal symptoms. Most in Hollywood work hard to cover their flaws – instead, Fox has revealed what his life is like at its hardest.
I don’t call that “acting,” I call it a hard truth that some people would rather not see but that everyone needs to.
I also found out something Wednesday that I wish weren’t true. Briefly addressing Limbaugh’s partisanship-born comments, Fox said, “It’s ironic, given some things that have been said in the last couple days — my pills are working really well right now.”
So, while I might have hoped Fox had eschewed his medication to make a necessary point one day recently, the sad truth is that this still relatively young man is just as ill with Parkinson’s disease as my octogenarian grandmother was before she died. Even on his medication, he’s unable to control his movements enough to not shock an ill-informed radio host.
This isn’t acting — it’s reality. And a reality most of us who really know this disease would rather was something that we never had to see unless people were performing in a play.
Fox’s choice is the same kind of choice Richard Pryor, Christopher Reeve and Muhammad Ali made in showing their health issues in public, hoping for understanding and working toward cures. I hope it’s a choice that more celebrities are willing to make when they suffer from such problems. These are things that our society can focus on collectively and thus better aid those who also suffer but aren’t lucky enough to be rich and famous, with the best of treatment and care.
Limbaugh has since issued what has been termed an apology, admitting he might have been wrong about how badly Fox is affected now by Parkinson’s. But it was a backhanded apology, as might have been expected. Saying that he apologized “if” he was wrong about Fox “acting” in the ad, Limbaugh went on to add, “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.”
I’m sorry, but if Limbaugh thinks anyone wouldn’t willingly be cured of Parkinson’s disease as a trade-off for forever staying silent in the political arena, he’s much mistaken. Speaking up and letting people see how devastating this disease is isn’t about politics, it’s about doing whatever can be done to find a treatment or a cure for something that could affect any one of us or someone we know.
We vote over issues that are important to us. For Fox, the Reagan family, and many in this country, one of those issues is research that might benefit those with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as other diseases.
This should not be about who’s a Republican and who’s a Democrat, despite Limbaugh’s desire to reduce things to simply a question of that little letter behind a candidate’s name. It should be about voters making the most informed decision on the issues that our candidates will be addressing during their terms.
I can accept Limbaugh’s deep-seeded suspicion of all things Democratic, if just one person looks at Michael J. Fox, or Muhammad Ali, or my grandmother, and thinks a little more deeply and personally about what it will take to develop a treatment or a cure.
There is more to the responsibility of voting than listening to partisan voices and nodding your head in agreement, skeptical of those on the other side. We must consider the implications of what our politicians will do with the power we grant them and do our best to ensure that our larger vision is represented in that work.