As I use the social media a great deal, it is impossible to not come up against the ever-present issue of the health of the leading candidates whenever logging onto any of the highly-charged social sites. So is it ethical to mock a candidate’s health?
I have made the intentional decision to not use candidate names. We know that one candidate fainted at a ceremony and the other candidate has been forced to turn over complete medical records from colonoscopy results to blood tests. Health is serious to anyone and to mock a candidate’s health is – well to me unethical.
Predictably, the Republican supporters, including the pro-Republican media mocked the health of the Democratic candidate. The Democratic supporters, including their media, mocked the health of the Republican. Who gives anyone permission to mock a candidate’s health?
On Twitter, there were many people who never passed a high school biology course let alone having gone to a medical school, offering all kinds of information on the presumed diseases they have constructed for candidates. It is all based on hearsay, meanness and just a touch of arrogance, but not one shred of credible, medical evidence.
At what point in the American electorate’s psyche was it essential for there to be an intimate need to know of every nuance of candidate health? For the record, one candidate is 68 and the other is 70. Do we believe that the candidates made it to these ages without having escaped any type of medical issue? More importantly, and from an ethical point of view, why should any of us care? I am being quite serious.
Mock a Candidate’s Health? The Evaluation Process
Suppose all politics were taken out of the process and the candidates were evaluated from top to bottom (as it were) by leading internists with sterling credentials. As one candidate is female and the other male, if they were more comfortable with physicians of the same gender, well why not? At the end of the examination (presumably longer than the 7 minutes most insurance policies allow our doctors for us), all I would truly need is this statement: “Presidential Candidate ‘A’ is in good health and fit for office.”
What other detail would any reasonable voter need?
Health is a very moveable target. Both candidates may be fit as a fiddle today, showing no physical or mental problems. What about a year from now? The phrase, “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” seems apropos. The nation did not seem to have an issue with John F. Kennedy or FDR or any other president who developed a health problem. It is arguable that it made them both more human. And in that age the idea that one should or could mock a candidate’s health was unheard of.
We have no idea with our own health, let alone a presidential candidate as to what a year might bring, and that leads us to another ethical problem.
Suppose you are a 59 year old male or female, and you have just been fortunate enough to get a job offer in an industry you really love. You will be in a position that is important to your company.
You work out most every day and you eat a good diet. You feel vital and fit and very much alive. You have some minor medical problems and they may even be somewhat personal, but in your normal, everyday life you get along just fine. There’s just one hitch. You need to take a physical. On top of that, the results will be made available to everyone in the organization.
Would you be comfortable broadcasting your medical report to every employee in the company? If not, then perhaps we need to examine “the why” of our preoccupation with the health of our presidential candidates.
I am afraid it is necessary to go even a little further than that. We generally elect presidential candidates who are “older.” Presumably, we want older people because we hope they have wisdom and experience. Fair enough.
We like to raise red flags when it comes to age. Going back to the example above, suppose every employee over, let’s say 50, was required to post their medical results online for everyone in the company to see. Would that be fair? Of course not, you would say, that is age discrimination! That is correct. Why then, are candidates also judged based on age? And who gives anyone the right to mock a candidate’s health?
It is within reason for a physician to certify a candidate of any age to be fit enough to serve. Assuming the physician has gone to a medical school and passed the tests, we should be more than satisfied with her or his evaluation.
Ethically we can agree or disagree with policies or records, stances or intentions, but long-distance, unqualified medical diagnoses and tests of health and fitness should be off limits. America was not built that way.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
On this one my friend I totally disagree with you. We are talking about the leader of our nation and we would expect that they would be in good physical and mental health to at least carry out a 4 year term. If not then we are really electing the vice presidential candidate. Did anyone notice that Hillary had an earpiece in during the debate? I’m not suggesting that she has a hearing problem i’m just wondering why. I personally am not for either candidate, but not to vote, in my opinion, for which ever candidate you choose, is not an option. We all need to vote. Sorry if I have ruffled some feathers.