Originally Posted By alexbook One thing to keep in mind when reading this article is that Dr. Amen is in the business of promoting "brain scans," and that lots of other neuroscientists think he's selling snake oil. Still, it's an interesting notion to consider that requiring candidates to have more complete mental exams might have turned up early symptoms of Reagan's Alzheimer's before he was reelected in 1984. What do you think? Most candidates make at least some of their physical health records public. Why not their mental health records, too? Arguably, it's more important to know that a potential President is on anti-depressants than that they're taking insulin or heart medicine. >>Get inside candidates' heads President's brain health matters By Daniel G. Amen What do Rudy Giuliani's messy personal life, John McCain's temper and Hillary Clinton's inability to seem authentic have in common? Maybe nothing. They may be just overblown issues in the otherwise normal lives of candidates under the political microscope. Such symptoms, however, may mean a lot — such as evidence of underlying brain dysfunction. Sometimes people with messy personal lives have low prefrontal cortex activity associated with poor judgment; sometimes people with temper problems have brain damage and impulse-control problems; sometimes people who struggle with authenticity have trouble really seeing things from someone else's perspective.<< <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5362198.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor y.mpl/editorial/outlook/5362198.html</a> Here's a rebuttal from the head of psychiatry for the Los Angeles VA: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yq6cp7" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/yq6cp7</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Why not their mental health records, too? << Because there is such misunderstanding and such a stygma about people who seek help for mental health issues, it would kill any candidate's chances at this point in time. In this country, we believe that strong people just pull themselves up by their bootsraps and don't ever consider getting help with issues like clinical depression. At best, people who do are seen as simply jumping on the latest trend. The truth is mental illness can affect anyone at any time. Until we recognize that, like a broken arm, it is a health issue that needs treatment, it will continue to be politically dangerous for any potential candidate to share that information with the general public. Many people think it's better to slog through a mental illness, hide it or deny it, rather than get treatment and admit "weakness" of this sort. We've got a long way to go, baby.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I'm not all that wild about elected officials having to share their medical histories, either. The outmoded idea that someone not in great physical shape but still being capable of brilliant thought should have been answered by the example of Stephen Hawking. I'm looking for a human being for president that can lead and inspire, recognizing they may be more or less physically fit, that they may have made some mistake at some point in their life.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder FDR was polio stricken and in a wheelchair. Bush's brain has been AWOL for some time now.
Originally Posted By jonvn Lincoln supposedly had Marfan's Syndrome. Kennedy had Addison's disease. Reagan was in the early stages of alzheimers. What's did their health have to do with their ability to govern effectively?
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Sounds like just one more reason good candidates would choose to not run. While you are at it, why not do a complete MRI, colonoscopy, and urinalysis. I am sure people could find something awful to say about a Bush or Clinton, regardless of the findings. Ooo! Here's an idea: Why not elect someone based on... their stand on issues! Novel idea, eh?
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Me too. At least, that is what my boss calls it, when he is in reaming mode.
