Medical Records of Potential Presidents

[Gina.Maria]

I'm watching a CNN report about this right now and it raises some questions for me. Do you think we need to know everything about the health of a candidate to the Presidency? Why or why not?

p.s. Can we try really hard to keep this one on-topic? I'm not interested in a discussion about McCain's or Obama's fitness to lead - I want to know about our leader, in general.

[FrenchRuby]

I think in a perfect world, where everyone fully understood all the potential implications of all illnesses, disabilities and anomalies, it would be useful to know the health status of a Presidential candidate. But since the world isn't like that, and people largely don't know what the implications of such things necessarily are, I don't think it would be helpful.

For example, I have MS. People find this surprising because they think that MS means you need a wheelchair, are incontinent, can't do the things 'normal' people do, and are likely to drop dead at any moment. But I am almost 9 years after diagnosis, and aside from some fatigue, a need to avoid unnecessary stress and occasional pins and needles in my feet, I am fine. My father also has MS, and thirty years after diagnosis he is still working on people's roofs and digging foundations and laying bricks just like any other building tradesman. Of course, we've both been lucky, but actually not particularly unusual. Ask people what they think having MS means, and I bet you any kind of money they wouldn't think we were typical. Ignorance breeds prejudice (in it's literal sense).

It probably would not be a bad idea for any holder of public office to have to pass a fitness and health test similar to that required for police officers, fire fighters and the like. A general fitness and health level commensurate with the stresses and strains of the job in hand would be a useful start. However, if I remember correctly, the US has had a President who used a wheelchair, and many who have been of advanced years.

Health issues don't seem to have presented much of a problem for Presidencies so far, but I kind of detect unwritten questions here. Have the correct contingencies been made? Does the ticket present a viable back up plan in case the President keels over? AKA Has a good choice of VP candidate been made...

[vegaschristina]

I think, since we don't get to pick the president's VP choice, there should be full disclosure.

What if, for example, there was an older gentleman running and he had an up-and-comer on the ticket in the VP slot. This up-and-comer would be unelectible on her own, but the party really wants her in the White House. They force the old guy to pick her without full disclosure of his own picture of health. What if his health is questionable and the candidate's party doesn't really want him but the VP to be president? So, we elect him thinking we're getting him, but then he keels over and we're stuck with some beauty queen without a clue of how to run the country, all because we didn't have the info to make an informed decision about the presidential candidate's health.

[Florida Cindy]

I think, since we don't get to pick the president's VP choice, there should be full disclosure.

What if, for example, there was an older gentleman running and he had an up-and-comer on the ticket in the VP slot. This up-and-comer would be unelectible on her own, but the party really wants her in the White House. They force the old guy to pick her without full disclosure of his own picture of health. What if his health is questionable and the candidate's party doesn't really want him but the VP to be president? So, we elect him thinking we're getting him, but then he keels over and we're stuck with some beauty queen without a clue of how to run the country, all because we didn't have the info to make an informed decision about the presidential candidate's health.

:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2 :agree:agree

[FrenchRuby]

Geez, I have this spooky feeling this isn't a completely random example, for some bizarre reason. Can't think why. :)

[Gina.Maria]

Okay, Christina, that's not where I was heading and no, Ruby, there's no ulterior motive on my part. I'm not calling McCain's health into question. I honestly believe that, without direct malicious intervention, McCain would survive at least one term as president.

The thing I really want to know is this: do you want to know that your president has hemmorhoids? Do you want to know if he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome? How about erectile dysfunction? On the CNN report, many were proponents of complete disclosure - no secrets withheld - and IBS was actually listed as a condition in the example.

As for past presidents with obvious disabilities or health issues, you have to remember that they preceded the age of television and less emphasis was placed on appearance before the time of JFK. (Who, by the way, was one of the most medically-challenged presidents in history.)

[txmusicmom]

No--I'm not for full disclosure............

I agree with Ruby--- each *disease* or *condition* has it's exceptions.

Would full disclosure eventually include DNA testing?? EEK!

[HappyMc]

I don't understand why this matters. Like everything else, the candidates' health and age are politicized and I find it disgusting.
Personally, for me age and health are not issues I concern myself with. I try to go beyond the media peep show and look at the candidates past performances, alliances, experiences.

[kjbstevens]

Only if you want the gov't to know your entire medical history too. I mean McCain's mom is still alive even though he is really old and Obama's parents aren't. It just shows things happen regardless of your health and history.

[Gina.Maria]

While the CNN report did go on to make reference to the current campaign, I did not start this thread for the purpose of politicizing health conditions and I resent the implication. In watching the report, I learned that one of our past presidents suffered from IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) and wondered if that should ever really be relevant. It's a valid question and leads to others - where does the right to know stop? Is it limited to elected officials?

As to whether their health matters, I can't imagine that it doesn't, to some degree. A neurological disorder that can have an impact on higher reasoning would definitely lead me to choose an alternate leader - wouldn't it you? Would you, honestly, be okay putting your mark next to McCain or Obama's name if the man were diagnosed with early stages of Alzheimer's? How would you feel if you elected him and it was later revealed that he suffered the disease?

For a preview - http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/10/06/gupta.fit.to.lead.cnn?iref=videosearch

[4noisyboys]

Geez, I have this spooky feeling this isn't a completely random example, for some bizarre reason. Can't think why. :)

:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2
Me either!!!!

[Tiffikat]

I feel that the public should know the candidates health to the extent that it could affect their term in office. A disease such as Alzheimers or Cancer or something in general that could affect the President's ability to complete their term should be disclosed. More personal matters such as IBS or even a yeast infection (lol) just are not necessary to know. They are not likely to affect the President's ability to complete their term.

[Keely~B]

I agree with Tiffany.

[Babette]

I'm watching a CNN report about this right now and it raises some questions for me. Do you think we need to know everything about the health of a candidate to the Presidency? Why or why not?

I believe that medical conditions that can (or do) affect the "thought process" or mental stability of a potential president should in fact be revealed. For example, a person who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia could see threats where none exist; this of course would be very dangerous for the security of our nation.

Further, if a medical condition exists where there is a strong likelihood that he/she may not indeed be able to complete a first term, I'm of the opinion that this is a very important consideration in the final decision of a voter. If this was case, then voters would have to much more seriously look at the VP running mate and decide for themselves if this person was ready to lead.

IMO, other disabilities need not be disclosed, as a leader can lead just as well in a wheelchair as he/she can standing.

[vegaschristina]

I believe that we do need full disclosure on medical issues. While erectile dysfunction doesn't concern me, but some diseases or dysfunctions can be very debilitating. I think it's important in deciding who will run our country to know if they have a disease or dysfunction that will cause them periods of debility while in office.

Imagine having IBS and being on the phone with Putin and having to stop the call to run to the bathroom. Imagine that we are in the middle of high stress agreements with N Korea to remove their threat to the world, and a president with the beginning of Alzheimer's goes of on a dementia-inspired paranoia?

Yes, my original post was very specific, and Gina's point with this thread wasn't. However, I do feel that we should have full access to the candidate's medical records. Part of what I consider when I decide who to vote for is the candidate's ability, absent malicious intent, to survive their term of office. It drastically comes into play for me when I feel that the VP candidate from either party is horribly unqualified for the presidential position. How can I vote for someone who may not survive their term (either thru death or disability) and put someone I feel is unqualified into the presidency?

[Scorpiosue1102]

I think major diseases should be disclosed. I would like to know if the person running for President has heart disease, cancer, Parkinson's, etc. I think it is important for people to know. It does not necessarily mean that they are not fit to be President, but if there is a possibility of the person dying in office the population has a right to know that.

[snaggletooth75]

I gotta agree here LOL I dont need to know when the last rectal exam was or how many infections they had. I just wanna know if they are gonna lose their minds LOL
I feel that the public should know the candidates health to the extent that it could affect their term in office. A disease such as Alzheimers or Cancer or something in general that could affect the President's ability to complete their term should be disclosed. More personal matters such as IBS or even a yeast infection (lol) just are not necessary to know. They are not likely to affect the President's ability to complete their term.

[Gina.Maria]

I'm assuming you're not this old but, if you could have voted for JFK (assuming you would have - let's pretend ;)) would you have done so knowing he suffered from prostratitis, Addison's Disease, IBS and a host of other disorders that made every waking hour painful for him? How might full disclosure have changed the course of our history?

[scrapper_gal]

In an age of instant media access I just can't imagine that we would not know about any major medical issues candidates have. Look how long it took the media to dig up all kinds of dirt about Joe the Plumber and he wasn't even running for office? While I don't care about minor medical conditions, I think candidates will voluntarily put their medical issues out there because full disclosure is easier than having to explain away media discoveries.

[Stephanie Ogren]

I'm assuming you're not this old but, if you could have voted for JFK (assuming you would have - let's pretend ;)) would you have done so knowing he suffered from prostratitis, Addison's Disease, IBS and a host of other disorders that made every waking hour painful for him? How might full disclosure have changed the course of our history?

I was going to use JFK as an example, he was absolutely riddled with disease, yet he was one of the greatest presidents ever. Bring on the sickness!! Just kidding :lol
I'm not so sure we should know what ails these guys.

[Tiffikat]

I feel that we do need to know for the exact reason that Christina pointed out in her "hypothetical" example. I'm not saying they might not be a great president with a disease, but if there is a health problem then I personally want to take a much longer look at the running mate to make sure I agree with their stances, policies and voting record.

[scrapper_gal]

I think, since we don't get to pick the president's VP choice, there should be full disclosure.

What if, for example, there was an older gentleman running and he had an up-and-comer on the ticket in the VP slot. This up-and-comer would be unelectible on her own, but the party really wants her in the White House. They force the old guy to pick her without full disclosure of his own picture of health. What if his health is questionable and the candidate's party doesn't really want him but the VP to be president? So, we elect him thinking we're getting him, but then he keels over and we're stuck with some beauty queen without a clue of how to run the country, all because we didn't have the info to make an informed decision about the presidential candidate's health.

This situation becomes even more ominous when you think about the Nixon/Spiro Agnew/Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller situation.

The Ford/Rockefeller administration was the only one in history when neither candidate was on the national party ticket. And this isn't ancient history, it happened during my lifetime. I remember vividly when Nixon resigned the presidency.

[vegaschristina]

I feel that we do need to know for the exact reason that Christina pointed out in her "hypothetical" example. I'm not saying they might not be a great president with a disease, but if there is a health problem then I personally want to take a much longer look at the running mate to make sure I agree with their stances, policies and voting record.

That, actually, was the point of my "hypothetical" example. If there is a health concern in the presidential candidate, I absolutely need to factor into my decision on who to vote for who they've chosen as a running mate. I realize that there will always be the possibility for losing the president to malicious intent. However, if a candidate goes into the presidency with any disease that greatly increases the chance that they won't survive the 4 year term, I think we deserve to know that so we can factor that into our decisions.

A totally hypothetical example: A candidate has a disease which doesn't take well to stress, but he chooses to hide that fact from the public. He chooses as his running mate someone who "rounds out" the ticket, but whose beliefs run counter to his own.

An example would be a pro-life candidate choosing a pro-choice running mate.

Knowing that the POTUS candidate has a less than normal chance to survive the term would then factor into the decision making process for most people.

I don't think we need to know if he has a wart on his foot or if he has erectile dysfunction. I absolutely think we need to know if he has any disease which will impact his ability to run the country. The problem is, without full and complete disclosure, there will always be someone who feels that the lack of complete disclosure is because of a conspiracy to cover something up.

[LindsaysMom]

Unless a candidate is terminally ill or has a disease that will effect brain functioning and reasoning, the personal health records are nobody's business.

[HLWalter725]

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I think I've come to my opinion: While I think it would be nice to know these things in making my decision to vote, I don't think that I deserve to know these things. We have all sorts of questions that potential employers can't ask of their job candidates and included among them you can't ask about someone's health other than something that pertains directly to the job. You can ask for proof that a laborer can do heavy lifting, but you can't ask a woman if she might plan to have a baby soon.

As far as mental illness goes, well I suppose if they wish to be a politician they are already a few cards short of a deck IMO, but I'd think anything that would impede their ability to be a good president would show itself somewhere along the way (Anyone watch Kucinich in the primaries??).

[photojenic]

I think anyone who WANTS to be POTUS is certifiably insane. :p

[cassie-in-texas]

I think, since we don't get to pick the president's VP choice, there should be full disclosure.

What if, for example, there was an older gentleman running and he had an up-and-comer on the ticket in the VP slot. This up-and-comer would be unelectible on her own, but the party really wants her in the White House. They force the old guy to pick her without full disclosure of his own picture of health. What if his health is questionable and the candidate's party doesn't really want him but the VP to be president? So, we elect him thinking we're getting him, but then he keels over and we're stuck with some beauty queen without a clue of how to run the country, all because we didn't have the info to make an informed decision about the presidential candidate's health.


subtle!:lol

[vegaschristina]

subtle!:lol

Sorry, I was up at 4:03 am with a horrible cold. Snarky was the best I could come up with :)

[cassie-in-texas]

Personally, I'd be happy with an insurance-type physical. If he/she would be elegible to get insurance (and we know what a pain they can be) then I'd assume there's still some sand in the hourglass. I would kind-of like some type of mental evaluation as well, just in case of say, early Alzheimer's. I have no idea if that's at all plausible, but 4 years is a long time if someone is deteriorating.

[strangejen]

I think anyone who WANTS to be POTUS is certifiably insane.

ha ha! ain't THAT the truth!!!

[Gina.Maria]

What about the possibility that their disease is part of what drives them? Assuming they're not suffering from a brain illness, what if they achieved greatness through a desire to prove themselves despite their disease or disorder? What if it spurred in them an altruistic desire to leave a lasting legacy of good works? What then?

[Chreamps]

What if it spurred in them an altruistic desire to leave a lasting legacy of good works? What then?

Then I wish they would ALL catch this disease, Gina.Maria! It would be nice to see them doing GOOD work for the American people!

[Charlene]

I don't agree with full disclosure. The thing is, any president could drop dead at any moment of, say, a heart attack. A clean bill of health doesn't guarantee anything and I, personally, think that their medical record is none of our business.

Also, I disagree with the notion that we don't get a say in who the VP pick is. There are two people on each ticket. We're voting for both of them. If one has a big enough problem with the VP candidate, then vote accordingly.

[scribler]

I don't see any real benefit in knowing. Life holds no guarantees for any of us. We can go have a physical, be declared fit and then die of an unidentified issue (Tim Russert is a good example of this). Knowing a candidates health issues, or lack there of, gives us no real knowledge of their life expectancy. Just provides more fodder for the rumor mills.

[Scorpiosue1102]

They had an article in the NY Times today or yesterday about all four of their medical records or lack of them. Palin has not given any records. Obama's was very short and he's in good shape. Biden's was a bit longer because of the aneurysm's. McCain's was long, but the reporters could not copy anything and had the records for only three hours. Their concern is that from his last melanoma it said it was a Stage IIA, but from what was taken out it would normally be deemed a Stage III. The big difference is life expectancy. Stage IIA is 60% for 10 years and Stage III is 36% or something like that for 10 years.