I was saddened & shocked to hear that Christopher Reeve died yesterday of heart failure. For those of you who don't know, he portrayed Superman from 1978 to 1983 on the big screen, heralding the return of superheroes back to the movies.
Reeve fell into a coma Saturday after going into cardiac arrest while at his New York home, his publicist, Wesley Combs told The Associated Press by phone from Washington, D.C., on Sunday night.
Reeve was being treated at Northern Westchester Hospital for a pressure wound, a common complication for people living with paralysis. In the past week, the wound had become severely infected, resulting in a serious systemic infection.
Reeve was 52 years old, & it's had been 9 years since his accident left him paralyzed from the neck down. His determination & strength in coming back from paralysis really had me convinced that someday he would walk again. He has been an amazing example of one's never giving up and of eternal optimism in the face of overwhelming odds.
He was beloved and will be missed.
God Bless him and his family.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Vic
P.S. I mean no disrespect by including the Amazon links, I'm just abiding by BlogCritics.org rules.
My apologies if they are out of place.
Vic
2 - Mac Diva
Christopher Reeve dedicated the remainder of his life to advocacy for spinal cord injury research after his accident. Unfortunately, he did not live a normal life span. But, in the years since 1995, Reeve was a tireless advocate for his cause. Despite the obstacles a quadriplegic faces on a daily basis, he campaigned widely and may even have taxed himself at times. Persons wishing to do something meaningful in regard to Reeve's memory can follow the advice of an organization he was a member of, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. It urges concerned Americans to send this letter to Congress in support of research on embryonic stem cells.
3 - Natalie Davis
A lovely tribute for a super man who was one of my heroes. Thank you.
4 - joel savage
Rant, it was like was like an arrow piercing through my heart, this afternoon at exactly 12.46pm, in Antwerp-Belgium, when I read your post, of the death of Christopher Reeve.
Truly, he was a brave man. His strong will and faith, kept him alive till now, after his tragic accident. I'm like a child, glued to the television, when watching films of Christopher Reeve. May his soul rest in perfect peace. Joel
5 - Mac Diva
His strong will and faith, kept him alive till now. . . .
Nonsense. Excellent medical care kept Reeve alive after his accident. He would not want sentimental slop attached to his life or death. Instead I urge people to read what Reeve had to say. He wrote two books after his accident. Here is a link to a full chapter from Nothing is Impossible. If you really cared about man, spare five or 10 minutes to read it.
6 - Vic
Mac, I would think that many people cave in and give up under similar circumstances, while others fight as hard as they can. You said it yourself, despite his obstacles he campaigned widely and may have taxed himself.
That's the faith and determination I'm referring to.
There's nothing wrong with sentiment... unless one is an emotionless robot.
Vic
7 - Eric Olsen
I agree: it isn't nonsense at all to say Reeve was driven by "strong will and faith" to overcome a crushing blow that would have left many beaten. It was his will and faith that drove him to pursue and help advance, the cutting-edge care he received and championed. There's nothing sentimental about recognizing the fact that he pushed himself to be the best he could be and to be an inspiration to others
8 - Mac Diva
There is something wrong with trying to force Christopher Reeve into shoes that don't fit, as Joel is doing. Reeve was agnostic. In later years he sometimes accompanied his wife to a Unitarian church. But, he never expressed belief in a deity. I don't expect any better from the Joel, probably Blogcritics' least literate member. But, I believe normal people will find actual information from Reeve of interest. That is why I cited his book.
It is also important to debunk the notion that people can 'will' away illness or disability or 'will' themselves to live. That simply is not possible. It is the state of the body and medical care that determine whether the extremely ill or injured survive.
As for crediting something other than the aides, nurses, doctors, physical therapists, etc., who care for a quadriplegic for his well-being, that is inaccurate and wrongheaded. Those people work much too hard to be deprived of the credit they deserve.
9 - Vic
Mac,
There are different kinds of faith.
I don't expect any better from the Joel, probably Blogcritics' least literate member.
I reread your comment and you could have made exactly the same point without the line above. Must you resort to putting people down to make your point?
It is also important to debunk the notion that people can 'will' away illness or disability or 'will' themselves to live.
Who said anything about that? Compare Reeve, who struggled with painful physical therapy and never gave up hope that he would defeat his paralysis, and actually made some progress as far as moving parts of his body, to someone who wallows in self-pity and does not give any effort to recovery. No matter how skilled a physician, nurse, or physical therapist, one cannot force someone to work hard and do their best. People *do* contribute to their recovery process. I should know, having had spinal fusion surgery.
Reeve could have spent the remainder of his life after the accident retreating into a shell and not making any effort to improve his condition or the lives of others.
That's what I mean when I speak of faith and determination.
Vic
10 - Eric Olsen
Mac, Faith does not equate to religious faith, as Vic notes; and as far as your aspersions against Joel, he is working very hard on mastering English, his FOURTH langauge. He is a journalist in Belgium, after moving from Africa where he was also a journalist - none of this in English. He has made great strides since he began contributing to us, his only English language outlet. Some perspective is in order.
11 - jack e. jett
many years ago i worked as a talent coordinater in los angeles for an aids event that christopher reeve (pre injury) was involved with. i was lucky enough to be assigned to "look after" him. i was thrilled and star struck at the same time. while other celebrities required certain special amenities, mr. reeve asked for a glass of water and thanked us several times for allowing him to participate in such an event.
during the course of the evening, he went from being someone that i had a crush on....to someone that i thought would be a great buddy.
where ever he is, i hope he is walking.
jack e. jett
12 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
sad state of affairs, man. didn't expect that, is the truth of the matter. fine work, Vic
13 - Mac Diva
Christopher Reeve was a humanist who believed that science would provide a cure for spinal cord injury. Perhaps it comforts religious people in some way to project their 'faith' on to him, but he was an agnostic. I believe his non-belief deserves as much respect as others' belief.
Let Joel work on mastering English in a classroom, Eric. It is embarrassing to have people click on an entry or the leader board and get something that reads as if a learning disabled fourth-grader wrote it. And, language is not his only problem. I've worked with plenty of ESL students. You can tell when someone is intelligent regardless of whether he speaks or writes English well. He isn't.
14 - Vic
Wow, if that isn't elitist, I don't know what is.
So what is the IQ cutoff for allowing someone to utter their opinion in public?
Eric, maybe you should institute an IQ test before people are allowed to post or comment.
Vic
15 - Al Barger
It's not fair to call Diva's hateful comments about Joel "elitist." HL Mencken was an elitist. She's just being hateful, and trying grasp for some little cheap sense of superiority.
16 - Katfish
Nice comments. Next thing you know, he’ll be compared to Jerry Lewis " except for one detail: Jerry Lewis never had MS. To portray Christopher Reeves’ self-serving advocacy for spinal chord research as altruistic is ludicrous. It’s of no surprise that before his injury, this type of research merited low priority. Afterward, many animals had their spinal chords severed for Mr. Reeves’ benefit, and last time I checked, there is still no healing procedure for this condition. So a lot of animals died for nothing.
It’s unfortunate what happened to him " but one has to remember: any time you undertake an activity that is inherently dangerous you run the risk of a major injury-or death, which given the alternative is a lot more preferred than sitting in a wheelchair, getting hemorrhoids and peeing in a bag. Interesting that Mr. Reeves was the only person in modern time to have had this injury. Among other riders he was a novice, and he had no business undertaking a steeplechase. Why not ride a skateboard without protective gear? It’s the same thing.
If there is anything that can be learned from this, then it’s to never forget how fragile our bodies are. Too many thrill seekers have had their lives permanently changed as a result of a traumatic injury (assuming they survived) . I lost a friend, who broke his neck and died riding an ATV. Tempting fate too many times can bring major consequences.
17 - Dana Huff
I don't think it would hurt some of us to have a little respect for the dead and save petty arguments for another forum. Whatever you think of Reeve, his family has suffered a loss, and I would hate for one of them to happen by here and think we all lack compassion. This arguing about religion, intelligence, and the breadth of Reeve's "altruism" and/or culpability for his accident is downright small. Frankly, I'm shocked by some of the comments here.
18 - Mac Diva
Dana, Christopher Reeve would be right here arguing in favor of embryonic fetal cell research if he were alive. He was an intelligent person who liked discussion of important issues. You are projecting your preference for the banal onto him, one suspects.
I haven't written a blog entry about handicapped people who oppose research into spinal cord injury, but they exist. There is a segment of just about any disabled group that will argue against a cure, claiming they're fine just the way they are. That extends to opposing operations for other people with the disability. Perhaps katfish is one of them.
As for the lack of altruism objection to Reeve, I addressed it on my thread about Reeve's demise. Briefly, it is silly. The fact that Reeve focused on SCI research and charity after his accident does not undermine his contributions.
"Respecting the dead" usually translates into Bible thumping or uttering empty, maudlin platitudes about them. If a person wants to do something meaningful in memory of a deceased person, he should do something for the living. In regard to Reeve, he would have appreciated your writing a letter to Congress in favor of embryonic stem cell research or donating to a charity that aids the disabled, including his foundation.
19 - Vic
Mac, I'm just curious, have you ever had someone close to you die?
There is such a thing as grief and sorrow and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a human reaction separate from any "Bible thumping".
Vic
20 - Katfish
Before Mr. Reeve had his accident, there was little publicity about spinal chord research. Afterward, we were then all expected to give an outpouring of empathy and dive into our wallets because one person not only took on a potentially dangerous sport sooner than he was qualified, but didn't even know how to land right? On top of this, and I'm surprised that no one even mentioned the first paragraph, medical science got the green light to further sever the spinal chords of innocent animals, in a quest for a cure. I find that scenario very unsettling.
There's a significant difference between a person who get's a disability through no fault of their own (such as those with birth defects) and those who get that way by making the wrong decisions. As I said, it is unfortunate that this happened to the man - but it's a tragedy that animals have to be tortured so that people who wind up in wheelchairs, who for the most part could have prevented their fate from happening, can have the faint hope of getting a cure before they too, pass away - and let's face it - such a cure is a long way from being a reality. If I donate money, you can bet it will be for muscular dystophy, alzeimers or any other disease that wasn't brought about by choosing wrong. If any of you think that animal torture is a good thing, in any capacity, then I'm not at all talking to you.
Who lacks compassion now?
21 - bhw
Katfish, Reeve's horse threw him headfirst to the ground. Exactly what would you have done to "land right" in that instance? Surely, you would have walked away unscathed.
Reeve's contribution to spinal injury research is that he put it on the front page, not that he was more deserving of help than anyone else. Sure, he wanted a cure for himself. Who wouldn't?
But you're argument seems to be that it would have been better for lab rats if Reeve had never been injured. Or at least if he'd never tried to get healthy. To hell with all the other *people* that might be helped with the money Reeve raised for medical research. Really, screw the wheelchair-bound! Let's save the lab rats!
I have a hot tip for you: all that Alzheimer's research you're much more supportive of -- since nobody fell off a horse, as far as you know, to get Alzheimer's -- tortures lab animals too. First, the scientists do some weird shit to the rats' brains to simulate Alzheimer-like degeneration. Then they kill the rats and slice their brains into thin little sheets. In muscular distrophy research, same thing. They try to give the animals the disease, and then they cut them apart to see what's going on inside them.
Naturally, I don't think animal torture for the sake of torture is a good thing. But I sure do condone the use of animals in medical research, even if it hurts them. A lot. If you don't, I suggest you empty your medicine chest and forgo all future medical treatment in the name of animal rights.
22 - Mac Diva
I'm not clear on where Katfish is coming from. Yes, he does blame the fate of lab animals bred for the purpose of research on Christopher Reeve and other 'selfish' people who have accidents. But, he doesn't stop there.
As someone who has worked in personal injury law, I'm familiar with the issues of contributory and comparative negligence. Katfish is misusing the language. Reeve's horse balked at a fence. Came to a complete halt. Threw him. There was no way Reeve could have controlled the way he landed. For contributory or comparative negligence to apply, he would have had to have had more control over the situation and made a bad choice. My friend and neighbor, John Callahan, who is also a quadriplegic, became paralyzed while driving drunk. That is contributory negligence, this isn't. (And, no, his culpability does not mean he doesn't deserve help or that SCI should not be the subject of a search for a cure.)
Furthermore, most spinal cord injuries to people over forty occur as a result of slip and fall accidents. Read that a second time, everyone. Many of us here are near or in our forties. Unless we give up walking, we will be at a greater risk for spinal cord injury.
Vic, I have seen people die. And, what I've learned from that experience is that really living before the inevitable happens is what matters. Though Reeve is being criticized for being an active and politically engaged person by some folks, what strikes one who has read his books is that he was so engaged with life. That man lived.
23 - Vic
Mac, thanks for the reply. Of course you're right that what someone does while they are alive is what matters, I'm just saying that it's natural to mourn and feel a sense of loss, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Man, this thread did not go in a direction I anticipated, and I think what someone says here says a lot about the type of person they are. I'm not talking about you, but others who are being petty about Reeve supporting a cause only after it affected him personally.
That's just lousy and shows a lack of maturity.
Vic
24 - Mac Diva
I'm not saying that one should ignore the depressive emotional response people often have to death, Vic. I will wait for John Callahan to bring up Christopher Reeves' death for that reason. I suspect it packs a punch for someone who has been a quad longer than Reeve was to see him die from a paralysis related cause. So, in the interest of sensitivity, I will not be one of the people asking John's opinion. If he raises the topic himself, fine.
Not that John necessarily approved of Reeve. If you are familiar with his cartoons, you know he hates liberals, non-believers and pretty boys. Reeve was all three.
25 - Katfish
I stand corrected, BHW, for the Alzeimers stand " it was a poor example of what I was trying to say, and you’re right " animals do get experimented on in that regard as well.
As for the rest of you, I'll be posting a response later on - it appears that I've written quite a lot about the state of vivesection in this world, and it's my hope that I can make my opinion clearer in this forum. I also want to thank all of you for your responses, both pro and con, as this is an issue that is most important, and to have this blog discussion is a great way to foster a better understanding and (I hope) make this world a better place.