An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

(Updated) Limited Records Release Shows Why McCain’s Mental Health Is An Issue

01aamccain_aginggg.jpg

Whether a president or presidential candidate should make their complete medical records available is a non issue. Voters have a right to know whether they are physically and emotionally fit.

That is why the release today of a carefully redacted and relatively small portion of the medical records of John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, is many days late and many dollars short.

Two Associated Press reporters who were allowed to look at 1,173 pages of medical documents spanning 2000 to 2008 for three whole hours (no photocopying allowed) report that McCain appears to be cancer-free, has a strong heart and is in general good health, although he remains at risk for developing new skin cancers and gets a thorough check-up by a dermatologist every few months.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details and while his campaign spokespeople say the records show that at 71 McCain is not too old to be president, they present only half of the picture.

The other half is McCain’s mental state.

The neurophysiology of the aging brain is not fully understood, and I am trying to tread carefully when it comes to McCain’s noggin, which was subjected to terrible abuse while in captivity in a North Vietnamese POW camp, brain-eating chemotherapy when he was being treated for melanoma, perhaps a few too many vodka martinis, and who knows what else.

As it is, McCain shows a vexing pattern of forgetfulness and has legendary anger-management issues, including this latest eruption.

The reality is that a characteristic of some aging brains is inflexibility and an inability to grasp new concepts. In other words, an inability to learn.

In McCain’s case, it’s not necessarily an in-your-face thing, but he keeps causing me to wonder. He would be the oldest person to assume the presidency, which makes his age a legitimate issue. But I know a couple of septuagenarians who are as sharp as tacks and run mental circles around people half their age. For me it’s less the fact that McCain would be 72 upon taking the oath of office than the state of mind of this particular 72-year-old.

When the red phone rings in the White House at 3 a.m., the president must have a fully functioning brain as well as the ability to be flexible; again, to have the capacity to learn.

The medical-record release gives me no confidence that he has either, but does have something to hide.

The dog-and-pony show nature of the records release to a tightly controlled group of reporters is acerbated by who was not invited to view them — The New York Times‘ Lawrence K. Altman, who is the dean of U.S. medical writers and a real live doctor. (CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, who also is a doctor, was invited.)

Altman’s absence is all the more conspicuous because he had been invited to review McCain’s records when they were released in 2000 but started asking uncomfortable questions.

More here on the records release and here on a controversial proposal to subject all candidates to examinations by a panel of independent physicians.

  • Congrats, Shaun. You managed to sink as low as the "Obama is a secret Muslim who hates Israel and rotted his brain with cocaine" crowd, and on even LESS evidence.
  • It does seem fishy that such a small group of reporters were allowed access to the documents. Is it normal for Presidential candidates to make fully public their medical records? Should it be?

    Hrmm...
  • CStanley
    Chris: No, it's not normal. And I don't think it's wrong that McCain's being held to a higher standard due to his age and his history of being held in POW camp for 5 years- but a bit of perspective would be nice, since he's already gone far and above what any other candidate has ever even been asked to do in releasing what most of us would consider some of our most private (and potentially embarrassing) personal information.

    From what I understand, the McCain campaign said that the pool of reporters had to be limited because the press avail was being held at Mayo clinic and they couldn't handle hundreds of journalists. As for making everything available for complete release, photocopying, etc- personally I don't think that the public would be served by having excerpts of descriptions of McCain's colonoscopy available to us.
  • Still, CS, excluding a real doctor/journalist and a highly respected one? What's up with that?
  • PWT
    Green Dreams, Shaun: The New York Times‘ Lawrence K. Altman - if you'd perused the blogosphere yesterday, you might have come across this item which explains very clearly why the Times was excluded from the pool (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/gray-lady...).

    Nice work, we await the release of Chicago's own native son's medical records.
  • CStanley
    GD: I'm pretty sure that Ed Morrissey is correct about what's up with that:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/gray-lady...

    Consider the context of the ridiculous smears that the NYT has attempted against McCain. I guess it could be considered petty of him to decide against allowing them this press avail- and it could even backfire on him if people think he's hiding something. But my guess is they made a calculated judgment that he had more to gain by allowing other reputable news agencies that didn't have a history of biased reporting on him.
  • CStanley
    Ha, PWT was a bit quicker on the draw.
  • Dr. Altman's thorough discussion of McCain's melanoma is the best and most professional I've seen. There is no tone of bias, let alone a hatchet job. Read it here.
  • CStanley
    I don't think it was Altman specifically, just the NYT editors that the campaign was probably trying to send a message to. Basically, lay off the smears if you want as much access as the other press.

    It's a bit like Dems refusing the Fox debate- and again, I'm not sure I think it's a good idea because it can backfire if it looks like you are afraid of how things will be spun. In this case though, I think because it wasn't necessarily overt- no one announced that the NYT isn't invited, they just weren't on the list of the ones who were chosen due to space restrictions- so it probably won't register with most people that there was any spat going on there.
  • runasim
    The final arbiter is the blog, HotAir? Why not KOS?
    Now a blog is a neutral source, unlike that wicked NYT? I don't think so.
    And of course, barring acesss in this case is SO different than the Dems not having their debate on FOX ?

    This isn't about McCain's health or his mediical record at all. I'm beginning to doubt anyone cares about those.
    It's about lining up your argumentaiton duckies in rows to suit a political prefeence.

    Access to mediacal records, how much and to whom, is a real issue that should be looked at without campainging for or against a candidate, as it was in the past.
    When Pres. Eisenhower was hospitalized, all information, including the facts of his bowel movements, were released by staff daily. In the aftermath, it was agreed by EVERYONE that this was humiliating, and the practise was stopped.

    Other concerns remain. The US is so much in the dark ages, that a record of having been treated for a mental condition would probably ruin a public career on the spot. Considering the traumatic nature of McCain's POW experience, I wouldn't be surprised if he had had some residual psyshological issues, at least at one time. I've been wondering about that and worrying that if something like that came out, ihow that woudl reverberate in commentary.
    That's the kind of thing to worry about in these, what we wink and call, discussions.

    I think there should be areas of privacy for all political figures as to medical records. IWe've come to a point, though, were no agreement is likely, because it's all about campainging for or against, and there are no issues of princiole left.

    It's too bad. If there were guidlenes, maybe some people could stop campaigning long enought to think about what's really important. .
  • CStanley
    Runasim, I disagree with your disqualifying of Hot Air because the person we linked to is Ed Morrissey who is well respected. He has a conservative perspective just as some bloggers have a liberal or center left or center right perspective- so lumping him in with the KOS type of commentary is unfair (I think it's unfortunate that he decided to blog at Hot Air because I think for some people he's now tainted.)

    But nonetheless, I mostly agree with the rest of your comment- I think we should come to some objective terms. There should be a baseline agreement that things that are of a personal nature but have nothing whatsoever to do with fitness for office should be redacted- but somehow there would have to be a doctor signing off on that to sort of certify that the redacted items were of that nature and not covering up something that should be in the public domain.
  • Just for the record, regarding the comments about no doctors being allowed, etc. one of the reporters given access was Dr. Sanjay Gupta from CNN, who is a neurosurgeon. He began commenting on some of the records this morning, but I haven't seen more yet. The fact that nobody could take copies or bring the records with them, however, will make it difficult to dig too deeply.

    Should any (or all) candidates be required to provide their full medical records? One the one hand, the "possibly most embarrasing moments" argument holds no water for me. When you run for high office, your life becomes and open book and sadly that means all your human foibles wil be on display. A far more persuasive argument, at least for me, is that we're really not supposed to have any sort of "test" applied to candidates in terms of their health. A person with terminal cancer who had six months to live should still be able to run and leave it up to the voters as to what they want. Unless it can be shown that the medical records in question will reveal something that leads to proof of criminal activity (e.g. a urine test for drugs?) then it doesn't seem that we can apply a "medical test" to the candidates of any sort. Candidates offer up all manner of records voluntarily, but that doesn't mean that they have to. It's up to us to decide if a lack of candor on some of these records means they are hiding something or erodes our confidence in the candidate.
  • runasim
    CStanley,
    Sometimes the NYT goes crazy. Oftten it does good reporting.. Politicians who want to burn down their offices one day, bring in articles to Congress the next to highlight an issue..

    Ed Morrissey may be the finest opionmaster on earth, but what he writes is not journalistic news reporting., it's news +analysis.
    He often reasons well, at other times, not so much.

    What I was refering to was the whole notion of judging an issue by where you read about it..
    What happened to just looking at the facts and doing one's own thinking?
    Is FoX a reliable or a disreputable source 100% of the time?

    The reliance on only certain sources, while rejecting others outright, to form or back up an opinion, is exactly what creates and maintains the parallel universes we live in.

    Used in a debate, i reject that methodology.
  • shaun
    A terrific comments thread, for the most part. (And Jazz, I added Dr. Gupta's involvement. It was in my draft but didn't make the final version.)

    Perceptions have a lot to do with how McCain is viewed and how this story is covered.

    I wrote a couple of months ago -- after all due deliberation and a consult with neurologist and psychologist friends -- of my concerns about McCain's state of mind. Would I do the same about Obama or Clinton if I had similar concerns? Absolutely.

    I don't think my concerns will be addressed because:

    (1.) The mainstream media will buy into the McCain dog-and-pony show lock, stock and barrel and move on. A review of a dozen or so media outlets shows that everybody is buying in.

    (2.) It is a rare blogger -- whether Captain Ed or myself -- who does not approach this story with his or her own preconceptions and that inevitably will color how this story is covered in the blogosphere.

    (3.) This story requires a degree of sensitivity -- and I want to be respectful of McCain because I think he deserves nothing less -- and most bloggers don't do sensitive.

    I'll leave it up to others as to whether I have been.
  • CStanley
    The reliance on only certain sources, while rejecting others outright, to form or back up an opinion, is exactly what creates and maintains the parallel universes we live in.

    Well, even Shaun admits that he's not immune to bias in the way he sees this, and Ed Morrisey could certainly be seen as having the opposite bias in this case. So if people are reading Shaun's take on it, I feel it's very valid to point them to Ed's piece where he sizes up why NYT was probably left off the invite list. No one is claiming that either opinionator is more factual- it's just a matter of balance from two different perspectives.
  • runasim
    Regarding access to information, leaving it up to the individual candidate makes sense in the abstract. Practically speaking, though, I think it woudl lead to endless arguments about unprovable intentions. What is he hiding?

    This may be just because I'm an old curmudgeon, but I find these fights about fringe issues lead to nothing but more fights.
    It's for that reason that I think some form of guideliens would help. It would reduce the need for battling about the same thing, candidate by candidate.

    PS I would prefer not to defer to Dr. Gupta, as in addition to being a neurosurgeon, he is also a 'personality'. To avoid controversy, give me the experts toiling away out of the spotlight.
  • neeraja
    I don't think it was Altman specifically, best and most professional,There is no tone of bias, let alone a hatchet job.
    ************************************************************************************
    Dual Diagnosis
    http://www.dual-diagnosis.net
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC