FBI Files: Rehnquist Had Hallucinations

[didymus]

tinyurl.com/ya9yhe

FBI Files: Rehnquist Had Hallucinations

FBI Files Show Rehnquist Had Hallucinations, Withdrawal Symptoms From Prescription Painkiller

By MARK SHERMAN

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The FBI’s file on former Chief Justice William Rehnquist made public more than a year after his death indicates the Nixon and Reagan administrations enlisted its help in blunting criticism of him during confirmation hearings.

The file also offers insight into the hallucinations and other symptoms of withdrawal that Rehnquist suffered when he was taken off a prescription painkiller in 1981. A doctor was cited as saying that Rehnquist, an associate justice of the Supreme Court at the time, tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him.
The FBI on Wednesday released 1,561 pages of documents on Rehnquist to The Associated Press, other news organizations and scholars in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act following Rehnquist’s death in September 2005. An additional 207 pages were withheld under the federal disclosure law, and the FBI said an entire section of his file could not be found.

Much of the FBI’s file on Rehnquist appears to have been compiled almost exclusively for his two Senate confirmations his initial nomination to the court by President Nixon in 1971 and his nomination as chief justice by President Reagan in 1986. Administration officials apparently hoped to prevent any surprises from sinking his nominations.

 

[steveandersen]

It is unclear from what I’ve heard whether he was self-medicating and abusing prescription renewal or if the original doctor screwed up. (it sounds like it might be the latter)
The drug started to affect him and his attempts to quit cold turkey lead to the symptoms described.

I don’t know why it wasn’t brought up in the Senate. (Think of the irony if it was considered a private matter)

The medical experts I heard quoted stated that once he was weaned off the drug the affects disappeared.

I wonder if you could study his opinions over time and see an impact on his work.

 

[Orogeny]

The man is dead. This info is not relevant at this time and since he can’t defend himself, it shouldn’t have been released.

Peace

Tim

 

[mary_bobo]

The man is dead. This info is not relevant at this time and since he can’t defend himself, it shouldn’t have been released.

Peace

Tim

It is so easy to judge when you have never had such agony of back pain. Withdrawal from any pain medication is difficult and takes professional help. Why is it necessary to look for nefarious reasons to criticize? Leave it to the press to further besmirch a man’s reputation when he is dead. May he rest in peace.

 

[steveandersen]

It is so easy to judge when you have never had such agony of back pain. Withdrawal from any pain medication is difficult and takes professional help. Why is it necessary to look for nefarious reasons to criticize? Leave it to the press to further besmirch a man’s reputation when he is dead. May he rest in peace.

Who said that withdrawal wasn’t difficult or that there were nefarious reasons to criticize?

It is merely interesting that these matters were not brought up in his confirmation hearings considering the material that is often brought up for other candidates.

No disrespect of the dead intended but the appointment of judges is an important proceeding. The appointment process must be able to be examined so that the public can be assured that it is functioning properly.

Orogeny:

…This info is not relevant at this time and since he can’t defend himself, it shouldn’t have been released…

Since it couldn’t be released while he was alive where does that leave us?

 

[Orogeny]

No disrespect of the dead intended but the appointment of judges is an important proceeding. The appointment process must be able to be examined so that the public can be assured that it is functioning properly.

This release doesn’t do that. It is up to the individual senators to review background info on nominees and then decide if the candidate is suitable for the position. If the senate decided that his problems didn’t disqualify him, then the process functioned properly.

Since it couldn’t be released while he was alive where does that leave us?

Worse off. It is just an invasion of a deceased man’s privacy.

Peace

Tim

 

[didymus]

It is unclear from what I’ve heard whether he was self-medicating and abusing prescription renewal or if the original doctor screwed up. (it sounds like it might be the latter)
The drug started to affect him and his attempts to quit cold turkey lead to the symptoms described.

I don’t know why it wasn’t brought up in the Senate. (Think of the irony if it was considered a private matter)

The medical experts I heard quoted stated that once he was weaned off the drug the affects disappeared.

Exactly. The paranoid symptoms were brought on by trying to go cold turkey.

What’s interesting to me is that his doctor apparently kept prescribing this stuff for him, apparently w/o any monitoring or supervision. I heard on the radio that Justice Rhenquist was going through 3-month refills in one month.

It seems that there were a lot of Dr. Feelgoods around in the 60s & 70s – or medical standards were quite different. President Kennedy was also on medication for back pain for his whole presidency.

I wonder if you could study his opinions over time and see an impact on his work.

I would tend to doubt it.

 

[a_priori]

SCOTUS had a mass hallucination one day in the early seventies when they saw the “right to privacy”, which really meant you could legally kill a baby, in the penumbra of the Constitution. Apparently such events were not uncommon in those halls.

 

[Jay74]

Rehnquist was certainly, IMHO, one of the better justices on the SCOTUS during his tenure.

Whether or not painkillers caused him hallucinations at some point is not really our business after his death.

 

[MikeWM]

The man is dead. This info is not relevant at this time and since he can’t defend himself, it shouldn’t have been released.

I’m not sure if it shouldn’t have been released - I’m all for freedom of information - but I fail to see why this is newsworthy. Hallucinations seem a perfectly normal side-effect of coming off this drug. It seems no more important than if he suffered from a dry mouth, or headaches, while coming off the drug. Who cares?

Mike

 

[KathleenElsie]

What good did the release of this information do anyone? Will it make life as we know it better?
If the answer is NO then the information should have remained private.

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m not sure if it shouldn’t have been released - I’m all for freedom of information - but I fail to see why this is newsworthy. Hallucinations seem a perfectly normal side-effect of coming off this drug. It seems no more important than if he suffered from a dry mouth, or headaches, while coming off the drug. Who cares?

Mike

For once, Mike, I agree with you.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Not sure what the purpose of this medical record release was.

Is this thread about the release of medical records? Or is it about the side effects when drugs have adverse interactions? Or about when drugs have side effects? Was he under a doctor’s care? Was he in a critical position at the time of the adverse side effect? [Like … did he possess the “football”?]

Are any of our other public officials subject to these kinds of side effects?

Do all public officials release their medical records?

is there a double standard regarding the release of medical records?

Are they going to release Bill Clinton’s medical records?

 

[steveandersen]

…is there a double standard regarding the release of medical records?

I doubt it
the privacy act covers all oficials AFAIK

Are they going to release Bill Clinton’s medical records?

After he’s dead all his records will be available
Why not?

These aren’t regular Joe-down-the-street kind of guys
These are people whose thoughts and actions affect millions.

A Judge earns his living with his thought processes. It appears that the withdrawal problems were short-lived. But he was taking the pills for years and years at dosages that other doctors have called negligent. There is no appeal from the Supreme Court. The president, the Senate, and the publics should get the judge they expected.

I know some of you are concerned about protecting the privacy of the individual but in retrospect how would you feel about a Senator raising this question back when it was more relevant? Would that have gotten him help sooner? Would it have been dismissed as a politically motivated ploy?

Where is the line on privacy with public figures?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Had this information been made public when he was still making decisions. Then I think the information could have been used for good. On the other hand it seems that the information was used just to smear the mans reputation and this is not something that should happen.

 

[Digitonomy]

What good did the release of this information do anyone? Will it make life as we know it better?
If the answer is NO then the information should have remained private.

Let me try and make sense of your statement…you think the law should prohibit the release of all private information about public figures, unless it is shown to “make life as we know it better”?

I take it you’re volunteering to make these assessments for us?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Let me try and make sense of your statement…you think the law should prohibit the release of all private information about public figures, unless it is shown to “make life as we know it better”?

I take it you’re volunteering to make these assessments for us?

No are you?
Except for the fact that people want to know the “dirt” on others what good does it do when someone is no longer in office or dead?

 

[mary_bobo]

Had this information been made public when he was still making decisions. Then I think the information could have been used for good. On the other hand it seems that the information was used just to smear the mans reputation and this is not something that should happen.

I don’t know that it has been established during what time period he was having problems. We do not know if it was while he was on the bench or not. I just see no need to talk about this, unless, of course, it pleases one to bash a conservative judge.

 

[Digitonomy]

No are you?

If you are going to set up subjective requirements like that, you will also need to give someone the job of making those subjective decisions.

KathleenElsie:

Except for the fact that people want to know the “dirt” on others what good does it do when someone is no longer in office or dead?

What good does it do to suppress that information, now that someone is dead?

There are many ways that the information could be useful - the most obvious is to better understand a public figure’s full life. This is most useful to scholars studying a person in depth, but can be informative to the general public as well…is it a bad thing that we are now aware that President Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound during his presidency?

If we are talking about medical information, it can be informative to an unaware public how certain medical procedures were performed back in the day or even now, as well as what risks and complications are associated with particular medical conditions and procedures.

Finally, such information may have played a role in a person’s public life, in which case it has an obvious historical interest. E.g., back in 1988 Lyndon Larouche was trying to undermine the impending nomination of Michael Dukakis by alleging the latter had serious health problems. I don’t think there has ever been any further information about this, but if and when details become available, it may be interesting to see whether this was a complete fabrication, or if Larouche’s desperate political move was based on a nugget of truth. Similarly, the release of a blood test showing former Princess Diana was not pregnant at the time of her death put to rest some of the more nefarious conspiracy theories.

To assume that any previously private information released about someone will invariably used for negative purposes (and therefore must be kept secret) is itself a rather negative and cynical attitude, and doesn’t give credit to the inherent goodness in people, who are after all God’s creations.

 

[Digitonomy]

mary bobo, in post #4 you agree with Orogeny, who states the information should have been kept secret. Then in post #12 you agree with MikeWM, who had no objection to the information being released, but believed it was not newsworthy. Do you merely oppose people talking about it, or do you think it should have been kept secret?