Posted on 11/02/2004 12:28:39 AM PST by Main Street
Treatments show the chief justice's thyroid cancer is an aggressive form, outside experts say
News Services
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William Rehnquist could not preside over the Supreme Court as planned Monday, and specialists said his treatment indicates a particularly virulent, usually fatal form of thyroid cancer.
Rehnquist said his pledge to return to the court after receiving a cancer-related tracheotomy 10 days ago was "too optimistic" and that he would remain at home while receiving radiation and chemotherapy treatment.
Rehnquist's first public comment since the court announced Oct. 25 that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer offered circumstantial evidence that he has the most serious form of the disease, several experts said Monday.
"This adds up to something very bleak," said David Cooper, director of the Thyroid Clinic at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. "That's very, very bad news."
The news about Rehnquist's condition came on the eve of a close election between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. If Rehnquist leaves the court for any reason before Jan. 20, Bush could nominate a replacement no matter who wins Tuesday's election.
"The form of treatment he's getting almost certainly indicates he is dealing with the most aggressive form of thyroid cancer, i.e., anaplastic," said Dr. Irwin Klein, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. Another specialist said the disease is "unstoppable" and that treatment is merely an attempt to prolong Rehnquist's life for a few months.
Rehnquist, 80, said in a statement Monday: "While at home, I am working on court matters, including opinions for cases already argued. I am, and will, continue to be in close contact with my colleagues, my law clerks and members of the Supreme Court staff."
In his absence Justice John Paul Stevens presided in the chief justice's absence, announcing thatRehnquist "reserved the right" to vote in the cases he missed based on the briefs and transcripts of the arguments.
Leonard Wartofsky, chairman of the department of medicine at the Washington Hospital Center, was skeptical thatRehnquist will be able to read, write and make decisions normally. "With those therapies, he is going to feel lousy," Wartofsky said. "His ability to eat, drink, speak and breathe are all in that area of the neck."
A diagnosis of anaplastic thyroid cancer, the most serious of four forms of thyroid cancer, would account for Rehnquist's situation, several thyroid cancer experts said Monday. And no other diagnosis would adequately explain his treatment, they said.
Rehnquist's doctors' approach, in sharp contrast to techniques usually used for milder cancers, suggested the physicians were throwing everything they had at the illness, the experts said.
"The growth rate of anaplastic leaves you a short window of time to operate, so you have to kill as many cancer cells (as possible) in a short time," said James Fagin, director of the division of endocrinology at the University of Cincinnati. "That's why you use combination treatment."
Removing the thyroid is not normally done in patients with this form because it spreads so rapidly.
"For anaplastic cancer, almost nothing works," Wartofsky said. "Radiation and chemotherapy are tried sometimes to slow the cancer and buy some time. All thyroid cancers are a little more common in women than men, but men do worse."
Anaplastic cancer'likely' None of the experts interviewed Monday is part of Rehnquist's medical team. None has information beyond the facts that have been made available by the Supreme Court.
But Wartofsky, Cooper and Fagin said no other diagnosis could account for the known facts of Rehnquist's case. Steven Sherman, chair of the department of endocrine neoplasia at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said anaplastic cancer was "likely" but that other explanations could not yet be conclusively ruled out.
Anaplastic thyroid cancer kills patients on average within six months. Looked at another way, 90 percent of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer die within a year, said Sherman. Wartofsky said in 35 years of treating thyroid cancer, he had seen only two patients survive anaplastic thyroid cancer.
"I have had patients where you can mark on the skin with a pen the edge of the tumor and watch it grow day by day — it is that fast," said Sherman.
Wartofsky, Cooper and Fagin said the evidence pointed toward anaplastic thyroid cancer because of the differences between types of thyroid cancer and the differences in treating them.
The Washington Post, Newsday and the New York Times contributed to this report.
You know, you have a point. And that gravity thing - it's too strong. We don't need that much gravity to keep us from floating off the ground - the level we have means it hurts when we trip and fall down. So let's set gravity to half its current strength.
The point is, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And for all the flaws of our judiciary, it still acts as a check against renegade legislatures and executives. And it is how things work now, whether or not you want it otherwise.
Really? Last I checked, Bush won the presidency without a majority or plurality of the popular vote. And small states have more clout than large ones. A republic, not a cliche.
Ok, Einstein, where is the check on renegade judiciaries? Because that is what we have now, or have you been too focused on the theoretical to notice!
It's called impeachment. We just haven't had reps and senators with balls enough to use it.
Lousy analogy. Gravity is a natural force governed by the laws of physics. Judicial review is a man-made creation, just like the monitor you are reading this on.
Whiiine. The point is, gravity is reality. So is judicial review. Simply saying that it doesn't need to exist doesn't change the fact that it is going to be a reality for the foreseeable future, therefore we all need to be concerned about the process of getting judges on the federal bench.
Legislatures and executives check each other. Read your Constitution.
Unless they decided to work together to circumven the Constitution.
If you have any questions about the efficacy of legislatures and executives checking each other, read about something called Watergate. Happened before your time, I know, but it's in the books.
Of course, I can also point out the fact that Clinton survived impeachment.
And what's worse, Sandra Day O'Connor has been in failing health in recent years, too. If Kerry wins today, and gets to appoint *2* SC justices, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye....
1 word: fillibuster
It will still give small states more clout, and since it will take small state votes to eliminate it, it ain't gonna happen. Try again.
You can't impeach a judge because you don't like his decisions or ideology. You can only impeach a judge for high crimes and misdemeanors.
And if you decide that blatant disregard for the Constitution fits that category, you can impeach him.
If we had negative-nancies like you back in 1775, we'd still be singing "God Save the [King/Queen]"
If we had folks like you planning the revolution, we would have gotten our butts kicked - the leaders eventually realized the reality of the British Army's general superiority and then learned how to fight it otherwise. Acting like it wasn't superior got a lot of American soliders killed in pitched battle during the early years. The point is, you can say the current reality is irrelevant, but in doing so you're going to get bit in the butt.
Yeah, and maybe I'll win Powerball and retire. Ain't gonna happen. And if, theoretically, it did, how could a judiciary stop it?
The Judiciary does that all the time in stopping laws that Congress passed and the President signed. Try again.
Not exactly. Clinton was impeached; he just wasn't convicted by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
Last I checked, that consitutes surviving impeachment.
Come back when you can make a coherent point, and you can have the last word. I've got better things to do.
Can't let this one go by, it's just too inane. It doesn't matter what the American people think. Only 13 small states are needed to block a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. The votes in question in Colorado, Nebraska and Maine still are in reference to the Electoral College, last I checked. It isn't one man, one vote, and it is within the rights of state legislatures to determine how their electors are chosen. And a person in Wyoming still will have more clout with their vote for President than a person in California.
You can pretend you're doing well in this exchange. Of course, you also are pretending that we shouldn't be concerned about judicial selection as a result of this election.
No, they are not. You don't even know how two of the states divvy up electors. Nebraska has five electoral votes. One vote for winning each congressional district, and the two votes equivalent to the Senate seats for winning the state. Maine is similar. Not proportional. And the Colorado vote will probably be shot down, since the change will be by referendum and not passed by the legislature as mandated by the Constitution - and it will apply retroactively to the election, which is also a legal violation.
And, once again, a Nebraska voter has far more clout than a California voter regarding the presidency.
Why do we need judicial review of legislation (federal and state) in the first place. Another outdated concept that is inherently undemocratic (small-d) and antimajoritarian.
The point is, whether you like it or not, judicial review is a reality now and for the foreseeable future. Your stating otherwise does not change that reality one bit. A sane person realizes that and reacts accordingly. I believe that the Constitution should be rigourously interpreted and read - but that doesn't happen either, and pretending otherwise doesn't change the reality of our super-sized federal government.
And exactly how is that going to be relevant to the next four years and the selection of Supreme Court justices?
Another outdated concept that is inherently undemocratic (small-d) and antimajoritarian.
Most conservatives on this website believe in republican government, which is by its very nature undemocratic and antimajoritarian at times.
Bush wins today, Rehnquist retires in a few weeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.