Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cause of Death Controversy

New material

In 1979, Harry Goldsmith, MD, a well-respected surgeon from Dartmouth Medical College, published an article, and somewhat later a book, postulating that a pigmented cutaneous lesion clearly visible over FDR's left eyebrow was in fact a melanoma, a malignant skin tumor. Examination of photographs taken over the first 8 years of Roosevelt's presidency clearly demonstrates steady growth of this lesion, followed by its unexplained disappearance, and replacement by an apparent surgical scar, in approximately 1940. Notably, this pigmented lesion was carefully retouched out of all official presidential portrait photographs taken during that period. Melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with dangerous metastatic potential; treatment options (then as now) are very limited beyond surgical excision, particularly after metastasis has occurred. Metastatic melanoma, Goldman contended, compounded by multiple serious cardiovascular problems, could have been the true cause of FDR's death. Central to this theory was Goldman's documentation of lectures and conversations given by George T. Pack, MD, a renown cancer surgeon and head of the melanoma service at Memorial Sloane-Kettering Hospital in New York City, who stated unequivocally that his colleague Frank Lahey, MD had seen FDR in consultation at the Lahey Clinic in 1944, determined that the president had advanced metastatic cancer, and advised him not to pursue a fourth term.

Howard Bruenn, MD, Roosevelt's last surviving personal physician, who had, several years before, published a summary of FDR's medical history which made no mention of cancer, denied in a series of interviews after Goldsmith's paper was published that FDR ever had cancer. However, he presented no evidence to refute Goldsmith's conclusions, and he was unable to explain the mysterious disappearance of the pigmented lesion.

In 2009, a physician and a journalist published FDR's Deadly Secret, an assemblage of surviving medical records, independent medical evidence, and eyewitness reports, including new information from the diaries of Margaret Suckley, Roosevelt's distant cousin, frequent companion, and confidante, which collectively (albeit circumstantially) support Goldsmith's conclusions.

It is very unlikely that this issue will every be resolved with absolute certainty. An autopsy, inexplicably, was not performed. Roosevelt's voluminous personal medical records disappeared after his death, and except for a few laboratory slips, found in 1957, remain missing. There are no known surgical pathology specimens, nor any other incontrovertible medical evidence. All of FDR's physicians and other primary caretakers are deceased. The opinions of historians and other scholars continue to vary widely. Even Harry Goldsmith, the physician whose 1979 paper raised the question in the first place, recently admitted that he is not convinced metastatic cancer killed Roosevelt.

Discussion

I've moved this new section here for discussion. The main reference appears to be to a self-published book written by the proponent of this theory. Aside from the one NYT article, it doesn't sound like this theory has received wider attention. If we decide to mention it I think a much shorter discussion of it, perhaps a sentence, would be sufficient. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. The information added is well-referenced, covers both sides of the controversy, does not violate any copyrights, and is true -- so why was it deleted, unilaterally, in a matter of hours? I'm not sure which of the several references cited is the "main reference", but none of them is "self-published" -- and I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in either side of this controversy. But as a dermatologist, I have examined the scientific evidence, and it is compelling enough to require mention by any serious reference. The theory has received wide attention in the medical community -- I already offered to provide further references on request. J. Eastern, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than go into a discussion about WP:Verifiability, I will just quote from my own review of FDR's Secret:

FDR’s Deadly Secret is a mistake ridden mish-mash of speculation along with a bit of new information. Upon reading the book, I immediately spotted an error to the effect that Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 acceptance speech (which was delivered via radio while he was aboard a train) was the first time he had not appeared at the Democratic National Convention to accept the nomination personally. Not true. He accepted the 1940 nomination via an address from the White House. (By the way, it was FDR who began the tradition of the nominee accepting his nomination at the convention.)

The thesis of the book is that Roosevelt was in much worse shape for longer in his presidency than has ever been revealed publicly. This has been raised in the media before. In 1979, a doctor named Harry Goldsmith postulated that FDR may have had malignant melanoma. This is based on photographs of FDR showing a dark spot over his left eye that appeared in the late-1920s, slowly grew, then mysteriously disappeared in 1942. The authors pick up on this, further theorizing that, by the time of his death, FDR's (unproven) melanoma had metastasized into stomach and brain cancer. The authors state that it was stomach cancer which caused FDR's weight loss in 1944, and that several incidents when the President seemed "out of it" were seizures caused by brain cancer.

The book's preface is illustrative of the flaws in the authors' work. It recounts FDR's address to the Congress after his return from the Yalta conference in 1945. There were a large number of verbal stumbles in that speech. The authors state that, based on the location of the text in his reading copy of the speech, FDR was having trouble with visual acuity in his left eye. Further, they state that FDR was using his hand to mark his place on the page while reading, and that he had never done so before. This latter statement is demonstrably NOT TRUE. There are newsreels of FDR as early as 1938 showing him using this method, and it increases as the years pass. Could it simply be that FDR's eyesight, as was common in older men, was beginning to fail, and he may have developed an astigmatism? There is no record of FDR's glasses prescription ever being changed during his presidency - and this would easily account for such troubles.

The authors speculate on several instances in the last year of his life when FDR seemed to briefly lose his mental grasp, only to recover a few minutes later. They claim that the President was suffering from seizures. But anyone who has seen someone having a brain seizure knows this is not the usual way it presents itself. It has been speculated elsewhere that FDR was suffering from Transient Ischemic Attacks, sometimes called "mini-strokes" and this seems the more likely cause.

As to FDR's weight loss, it has been documented as having been deliberate. FDR preferred to keep his weight at 175#, which would be an acceptable weight for a 6'2" paralytic. Due to the doubly sedentary nature of being paralyzed and working behind a desk, his weight fluctuated throughout his presidency, and by the end of 1943, he was nearly obese. It was on the recommendation of his doctors that FDR lose weight to reduce the strain on his heart. The authors trot out several figures for how much FDR weighed at various points, with no documentation to support them. One can only surmise that they are "guesstimating" based on photographs.

Perhaps most troubling is the attitude the authors take toward Howard Bruenn, the cardiologist who examined FDR in early 1944 and diagnosed his cardiac failure. This book is a reckless slap at his memory, accusing Bruenn, who arguably kept the President alive several additional months, of falsifying his accounts of his time with the President. If any physician made such a remark in public about another living doctor, he would likely get booted out of the AMA. But Bruenn died in 1995, so he must be a safe target.

The book also relies on some highly suspect accounts, such as those by Walter Trohan, a scandalmonger for the fiercely anti-FDR Chicago Tribune (the newspaper which published the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman headline).

Finally, the authors fail to clearly delineate between the reporting of fact and their own speculations - several times repeating the cancer thesis as if it were a fact.

Speculation about FDR's health has surrounded him ever since he ran for Governor of New York in 1928. There were rumors that his paralysis was caused by syphilis. In 2003, a peer-reviewed study concluded that his paralysis was most likely caused by Guillain-Barré syndrome, not Polio (and certainly not syphilis).

No doubt, the controversy surrounding FDR's health and his fitness for office in the last 16 months of his presidency remains some 65 years after his death. Many worthy books have been written which address his physical health and state of mind during that period. This isn't one of them.THD3 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read that review, which is posted on Amazon.com, and we can discuss it in a more appropriate venue if you wish. (I'm interested, for example, in why you think doctors are forbidden to make remarks about each other, and why doing so would "likely get [him] booted out of the AMA" - which very few doctors belong to anymore anyway.) And I have my own issues with that particular book. But, of course, our personal opinions of one of the cited references is irrelevant to this discussion. And I understand the natural tendency to push back when new data is presented which contradicts our cherished lifelong beliefs. But the fact remains that this controversy exists; the evidence, while circumstantial, is strong; it is frequently discussed in both medical and historical circles; the summary I added clearly labeled it as a controversy, not a fact; the circumstances surrounding a president's death are of more than passing importance; and to ignore such a controversy completely, in an article that purports to be a comprehensive summary of FDR's life, diminishes the relevance of that article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The material was well-written, my congratulations to DoctorJoeE. My concern is mostly over the amount of weight this obscure theory deserves in the biography of one of the great figures of the 20th century. Sentence, or even a paragraph, would seem more appropriate than a 440-word section.   Will Beback  talk  14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that we only devote about 280 words to FDR's paralytic illness. A longer treatment is in a separate article, Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. I think that the material on the controversy over the cause of death should probably be much shorter and if it's notable enough then a separate article can cover the details.   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:FRINGE, which would make zero words appropriate. (Hohum ^@) 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been through this almost exact same issue before. In the Patton article, someone insisted on including the then recently released book claiming Patton was murdered by the Soviets AFTER a failed attempt by our own government only resulted in his accident. The person insisted that since this ONE BOOK was published and reviewed, that was all that was needed to include mention of it. Now it looks like the same thing is happening here. My thoughts are same now as they were then: no one book, reviewed, debunked, or with any other type of public acknowledgement of its existence, deserves mention if it makes extraordinary claims that cannot be verified or disproved because evidence is "conveniently" missing or those involved are dead and cannot confirm or deny said claims. A link in a "See Also" section to an article about the book, if it exists, would be the most that should be done. Fred8615 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the general consensus is to omit this entirely. WP:FRINGE is an applicable guideline.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, omit. No need to link to it. Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Omit. Seems a bit off that one photo provides the basis of a whole theory that developed decades after FDR's death, and one that would require FDR's personal physicians to be completely ignored. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus I'll abide by it, of course; but for the record, ignoring controversy is not a way to get a demoted article back to "Featured" status. As for "ignoring" FDR's personal physicians, you have to remember that the first thing those physicians did after he died was destroy nearly all of his voluminous medical records. The second thing they did was make sure no autopsy would be performed on the President of the United States. And you're going to trust anything they say after that? What they said after that was trust us, he died of cardiovascular disease - when any first year medical student in the world will tell you that those Yalta Conference photos show a man with metastatic cancer - about as classic a presentation as you're ever likely to see. The controversy should be mentioned, at the very least. If you disagree with it, fine - but to completely ignore it? That's not encyclopedic. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name.

Someone reverted my edit of a "citation needed" tag for the pronunciation. This may seem quibbling, but I frequently hear "rue" (v. and n.) -se velt. (Don't know the schwa code.) A citation for the pronunciation does not seem out of bounds, even though I agree with the stated vowel values. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FDR was inaugurated four times. In each case, he was recorded taking the oath of office, and on each occasion he pronounced his last name ROE-zə-velt. Clips are available on youtube and various documentaries.THD3 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, for example:[1] It sounds more like ROE-zə-vəlt. In fact, that's the pronunciation given for FDR in my Webster's, where it points out, "this is how Roosevelt pronounced it." Other members of the family appear to have pronounced it slightly differently. But definitely ROSE, not RUSE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank the contributors. As I stated, I never disagreed with the quoted vowel values. I am glad verification was so readily available. Thank you for improving Wikipedia rather than deleting specifications requested by the public (for whom, and generally by whom, Wikipedia is run). 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Nomination

"leading the United States during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war. The only American president elected to more than two terms, he forged a durable coalition that realigned American politics for decades. FDR defeated incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover in November 1932, at the depths of the Great Depression. FDR's combination of optimism and activism revived the national spirit. He led the United States through World War II, dying at the start of his fourth term just as victory was near over Germany and Japan."

Revived spirit? Optimism and activism? Led the US?(Led to where?) Such language might be appropriate on ilovefdr.com but not on a neutral encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMCHEST (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the NPOV tag on this article. After looking the article over, it seems to me that the tag is basically frivolous. There may be minor problems with the language here or there, but the article is in general neutrally worded and well sourced; no significant problems in evidence to justify the tag, hence I am removing it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nsk92. Sunray (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Nsk92. the article reflects the range of viewpoints in the RS. I think all RS agree that the national spirit was better in April 1945 than March 1933. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Nsk2, Rjensen, and Sunray. Article includes more than adequate coverage of criticism of FDR and his policies. If memory serves, tt has also been rated as an "A-class" article, which is about as good as it gets.THD3 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Child?

I was stumped by something this morning. I saw FDR on a recent list of Time Magazine's list of "Only Children That Changed The World". I checked here and it notes that FDR was an only child.

A very oft-repeated piece of trivia is that no US President was an only child. Is that piece of trivia wrong, or is there something missing in the commonly known FDR biography that isn't mentioned in the article, e.g. a step-sibling or an adopted sibling? --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FDR was the only child of James and Sara Roosevelt. James had another son, James, Jr by a previous marriage to Rebecca Howland. The younger James was born 28 years before FDR and they didn't have much contact. So, FDR didn't have any full siblings, but he had a half-brother.THD3 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton in the same place. Only half brothers and sisters, since their fathers died before they were born, or did they have older siblings?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

{Correction) Ford's dad wasn't dead when he was born. I just looked it up.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent NY Times article

An article out today with some pertinent details:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29fdr.html

Dhollm (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Labor Day

What did FDR exactly have to do with labor day and how its celebrated today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.65.174 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, that I'm aware of. If memory serves, the advent of Labor Day predated FDR's presidency by at least 50 years. DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

quote

"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment . . . ; If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along." — Franklin D.Roosevelt counseling Frances Perkins