Doctors and Politics

Skeptic Bob · Sep 13, 2016

In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

Northern Light · Sep 13, 2016

Everyone wants their 15 seconds of fame. Doctors aren't forbidden from making speculative diagnoses about people. It all comes back to the public being gullible and not willing to cross-check information. If you accept an MD's work based on visual observation alone then you're pretty ignorant.

I disagree with forcing people to take medical exams and having their conditions made public in order to become POTUS. It's a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and it's a security risk to expose our politicians' weaknesses like that. Besides, we already have a safe guard in place in case a POTUS becomes too ill to serve. It's called the Vice President.

humbolt · Sep 13, 2016

I've been watching YouTube videos, and I'm pretty sure I can remove an appendix in my shop now. At the very least, I can remove one of those squishy things in the area of the appendix, anyway. Sometimes it's hard to tell what's extraneous and what's essential, but what the hell.

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

I really don't care about the Hillary's health issue.
It would be important, in another universe, but you really can't believe anyone on this.

Time to move on and ignore the stupid ****.

LowDown · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

I don't remember any hesitancy among the left wingers when it came to speculating about John McCain's health. They had doctors by the score commenting on him. Some of them even predicted that he would not finish his first term if elected, that he wouldn't live that long, and most left wingers took it as gospel. Sorry, but you guys have no right to have any reservations about that sort of thing now.

By the way, in case you don't know, McCain is still healthy and serving in the Senate.

countryboy · Sep 13, 2016

LowDown said:
I don't remember any hesitancy among the left wingers when it came to speculating about John McCain's health. They had doctors by the score commenting on him. Some of them even predicted that he would not finish his first term if elected, that he wouldn't live that long, and most left wingers took it as gospel. Sorry, but you guys have no right to have any reservations about that sort of thing now.

By the way, in case you don't know, McCain is still healthy and serving in the Senate.

But if libs didn't have hypocrisy, what would they have? :shrug:

Skeptic Bob · Sep 13, 2016

Northern Light said:
Everyone wants their 15 seconds of fame. Doctors aren't forbidden from making speculative diagnoses about people. It all comes back to the public being gullible and not willing to cross-check information. If you accept an MD's work based on visual observation alone then you're pretty ignorant.

I disagree with forcing people to take medical exams and having their conditions made public in order to become POTUS. It's a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and it's a security risk to expose our politicians' weaknesses like that. Besides, we already have a safe guard in place in case a POTUS becomes too ill to serve. It's called the Vice President.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't think their medical conditions should be known to the public. The only thing the medical board would to the public is if they are or aren't fit for duty. We don't need the details.

As for the Vice President being a sufficient safe guard? That argument would hold more weight with me if we went back to electing the Oresident and Vice-President separately.

justabubba · Sep 13, 2016

Harry Guerrilla said:
I really don't care about the Hillary's health issue.
It would be important, in another universe, but you really can't believe anyone on this.

Time to move on and ignore the stupid ****.

i recall after the first debate of reagan's run for his secod term, there was considerable speculation that he might be slipping, mentally
appears the speculation was valid
the health of a presidential candidate is certainly something of concern to a voting citizen

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 13, 2016

justabubba said:
i recall after the first debate of reagan's run for his secod term, there was considerable speculation that he might be slipping, mentally
appears the speculation was valid
the health of a presidential candidate is certainly something of concern to a voting citizen

I agree, in a normal universe.
At this point, there is no normal to be had.

At best we'll get boilerplate, "everything is a-ok" about said candidate, from a possibly well bribed doctor.

LowDown · Sep 13, 2016

humbolt said:
I've been watching YouTube videos, and I'm pretty sure I can remove an appendix in my shop now. At the very least, I can remove one of those squishy things in the area of the appendix, anyway. Sometimes it's hard to tell what's extraneous and what's essential, but what the hell.

They have experience in the Navy with medical people not trained in surgery attempting appendectomies at sea. More than half the time the patient died. So now if someone comes down with that while at sea they don't do surgery. They just give the patient big doses of antibiotics, and that works pretty well.

Doctors should not be commenting on the health of people they haven't seen of course. But the objections to them doing that coming from Hillary supporters don't sit well with me because I remember all of their talk, plenty of doctors included, about how McCain was too old and sick to be president back when he was running. Sauce for the goose, by God.

Fiddytree · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

It's a shameful practice all around. Individuals speculating on Trump's un-diagnosed psychological state and individuals speculating on Clinton's whatever physical state are doing a disservice to physical and mental health practices.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

I do not see how that can be accomplished without grossly compromising the political party's right to field a candidate, and the public's right to vote on that candidate.

Skeptic Bob · Sep 13, 2016

LowDown said:
I don't remember any hesitancy among the left wingers when it came to speculating about John McCain's health. They had doctors by the score commenting on him. Some of them even predicted that he would not finish his first term if elected, that he wouldn't live that long, and most left wingers took it as gospel. Sorry, but you guys have no right to have any reservations about that sort of thing now.

By the way, in case you don't know, McCain is still healthy and serving in the Senate.

I made the same case win McCain ran, though I wasn't a member here yet. My opinion on this is irrespective of who the candidate is.

Skeptic Bob · Sep 13, 2016

justabubba said:
i recall after the first debate of reagan's run for his secod term, there was considerable speculation that he might be slipping, mentally
appears the speculation was valid
the health of a presidential candidate is certainly something of concern to a voting citizen

But when everyone is speculating some of the people are going to be right by sheer math alone. Hillary either has pneumonia or she doesn't. If they prove it is pneumonia all the doctors supporting Hillary will come out and say, "see, we told you". If it turns out to be something more nefarious then the other doctors will come out and say, "see we told you."

By sheer chance one of the two sides is right, but it doesn't mean anything.

humbolt · Sep 13, 2016

LowDown said:
They have experience in the Navy with medical people not trained in surgery attempting appendectomies at sea. More than half the time the patient died. So now if someone comes down with that while at sea they don't do surgery. They just give the patient big doses of antibiotics, and that works pretty well.

Doctors should not be commenting on the health of people they haven't seen of course. But the objections to them doing that coming from Hillary supporters don't sit well with me because I remember all of their talk, plenty of doctors included, about how McCain was too old and sick to be president back when he was running. Sauce for the goose, by God.

I agree, and if I were a physician, I'd refrain from comment. However, the general notion that Hillary is not well apparently has some merit. Speculation beyond that is foolish.

My uncle was a ship's surgeon on a destroyer in the south Pacific in WWII. He did perform a successful appendectomy on a sailor, but he himself claimed he'd never have attempted it but for the fact that the fellow was going to die without it anyway. My uncle did happen to be a surgeon though, which was unusual on board such a vessel.

Fearandloathing · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

Doctors are political too.....and when there's this kind of money on the line its easy to find a doctor to say exactly what you want them to. It seems Trump has done just that; as he creates fears over every issue, he has created this one as well.

Skeptic Bob · Sep 13, 2016

Fiddytree said:
It's a shameful practice all around. Individuals speculating on Trump's un-diagnosed psychological state and individuals speculating on Clinton's whatever physical state are doing a disservice to physical and mental health practices.

I do not see how that can be accomplished without grossly compromising the political party's right to field a candidate, and the public's right to vote on that candidate.

The Party and the People could still feel free to roll the dice and disregard the medical report.

Fiddytree · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
The Party and the People could still feel free to roll the dice and disregard the medical report.

It's still an additional layer of sifting beyond the primary process and the general election. As such, presents a danger that the opinions of the medical examiners are unduly harsh or of partisan or ideological bent.

justabubba · Sep 13, 2016

humbolt said:
I agree, and if I were a physician, I'd refrain from comment. However, the general notion that Hillary is not well apparently has some merit. Speculation beyond that is foolish.

My uncle was a ship's surgeon on a destroyer in the south Pacific in WWII. He did perform a successful appendectomy on a sailor, but he himself claimed he'd never have attempted it but for the fact that the fellow was going to die without it anyway. My uncle did happen to be a surgeon though, which was unusual on board such a vessel.

why would a trained surgeon object to performing a routine appendectomy?

back to the topic:

knowing the presidential candidates' medical circumstances could impact one's vote
for example if hillary's health situation caused me to believe there would be placed a high degree of reliance of Kaine, then i might need to evaluate Kaine against tRump as the superior person to lead our country*

*that is a hypothetical scenario. i would prefer a wombat to tRump in the national election
but in other presidential campaigns, the presidential candidate's health could be a legitimate basis for one's vote

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 13, 2016

Just an example to think on.
When DNCLeaks came out, people asked when they were going to release information on Trump.
If they legitimately had none, at that time, they obviously couldn't, but people assumed that they were being partisan jerks.

Imagine if the doctors said one candidate was well, while the other wasn't.
One side will inevitably assume that something is "going on."

humbolt · Sep 13, 2016

justabubba said:
why would a trained surgeon object to performing a routine appendectomy?

On a WWII destroyer in the south pacific in the middle of a typhoon? I can think of a few reasons.

back to the topic:

knowing the presidential candidates' medical circumstances could impact one's vote
for example if hillary's health situation caused me to believe there would be placed a high degree of reliance of Kaine, then i might need to evaluate Kaine against tRump as the superior person to lead our country*

*that is a hypothetical scenario. i would prefer a wombat to tRump in the national election
but in other presidential campaigns, the presidential candidate's health could be a legitimate basis for one's vote

I'd probably prefer either of the VP candidates to Trump or Hillary. I think an honest general evaluation of each presidential candidate's health is beneficial. I have no desire to get into great detail with their health records and so on. We just need to know if they are fit to assume the duties of office. The rest should remain private.

Mr Person · Sep 13, 2016

BrewerBob said:
In almost any non-political situation if you ask a doctor to comment on someone's health who isn't their patient they will respond with something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I can't comment on the medical condition of someone one until I have reviewed their records and examined them myself."

This is something that every doctor learns in training and through experience. But when the person in question is a politician all of a sudden that bit of knowledge is discarded by some doctors. If the politician is one the doctor doesn't like the doctor turns into WebMD and starts listing off all the worst things it could theoretically be. If the politician is one the doctor likes then he will back up what the candidate says the condition is, even if they have never so much as spoken on the phone.

No-nothings, like me, who want to speculate on message forums are one thing. But I lose all respect when actual physicians make the unprofessional decision to comment on someone's health that isn't their patient and that they haven't personally examined. And frankly, their opinions should be ignored, regardless if you like what they are saying or not.

As an aside, I DO believe Presidential candidates should be examined by a board of non-partisan physicians to determine their fitness to serve.

I'd add: The reason that you are always handed a clipboard with forms to fill out at a new doctor's office is not that they're stupid or lazy. It's that only a small portion of one doctor's medical records make sense to (or are even legible to) another doctor...

Doctors and Politics

Skeptic Bob

Northern Light

The Light of Truth

humbolt

Harry Guerrilla

LowDown

Curmudgeon

countryboy

Skeptic Bob

justabubba

long standing member

Harry Guerrilla

LowDown

Curmudgeon

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Skeptic Bob

Skeptic Bob

humbolt

Fearandloathing

How long is now?

Skeptic Bob

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

justabubba

long standing member

Harry Guerrilla

humbolt

Mr Person

A Little Bitter