Do we really need to know the President's medical details?

I figure this is the best place to put this, so here goes.

In the wake of Saturday’s presidential rectal exploration, I find myself wondering if we as the public really need to know the details of the inside of our President’s colon.

This certainly isn’t something limited to Bush, as every President gets checkups and the findings are announced to the media. While I can understand announcing that the President is in good health or perhaps explaining to us that he has a heart problem or something, do we really need to know that 5 non-threatening polyps were found in the Commander and Chief’s tuckus?

Further though, I think of Grover Cleveland’s secret operations on board his yacht for jaw cancer on the roof of his mouth and JFK’s secret battle with Addison’s disease. Are those cases where the secrecy was necessary, as public knowledge would have most certainly lowered the population’s confidence in the Executive Branch?

So should the public know all of the juicy little tidbits of the President’s health? Why? Why not?

The fate of the free world depends upon this asshole, so yes, the condition and prognosis of this asshole should be public knowledge.

Maybe not so much detail, but at least that he will be out of service and that Mr. Happy will be in charge, would be more than enough information for me.

I think they partially do it as a public service, to let people know that they should get this kind of screening, what happens when they find polyps, what it means medically, etc.

It’s up to the individual. Bush has chosen to waive some of his right to privacy. If he makes it public, it gets publicized whether we need to know or care to know. If he chose to keep it private, that would be his right.

I think I’m agreeing with you on this one. While I think it is good to say he’s getting a colonoscopy, maybe as more of an example for men his age (just as if we had a female president and she was going in for her annual mammogram)- I just don’t see how we really need to know the gory details. A simple, “Everything was great!” would suffice, I think.

I actually wonder this about a lot of “news” (and I’m not even talking about the celebrity items now common to most newscasts). I remember a news story a while back about somebody who drove off a bridge and died. Tragic, to be sure, but what’s the informational value there? How does hearing this story make any difference to anything unless I happen to be acquainted with the victim? If it’s supposed to serve some public service, I’m pretty sure most people watching the news know “driving off a bridge=bad”. Sure, it’s a factual account of an event that occurred, but isn’t there a higher standard for what actually constitutes “news”? I realize if it bleeds it leads, but you’d still think they’d have some more stringent guidelines.

I’m with ya, **woodstockbirdybird **. Lately the local news has been going into (what I consider to be) incredibly graphic detail in regard to the locals killed in Iraq. “Killed in combat” or “killed in a road side bombing” should suffice, if you ask me. Rather, they are going into graphic detail by saying things like, “As the bomb exploded, the three men were instantly injured as the ammunition in their armored vehicle went off. While others attempted to pull them from the wreckage, it was too late and ((Corporal Whoever)) had already bled to death.” It’s like some twisted attempt at editorializing for ratings and particularly in situations like the above, I find it just despicable.

Another time that comes to mind is a few months ago when they found those missing soldiers (or was it soldier? I can’t remember whether it was one or a few) floating in the river over in Iraq. The news said they were unable to give names because families had yet to be informed, but that the victim had ((I can’t remember the exact details, but it was something like this) on US military cammie pants, had on US military boots, had a tattoo of an (I can’t remember exactly what it was) on his left upper arm, and had a bullet hole through the back of the head. Well if your son or brother or cousin or neighbor was MIA in that area of Iraq and happened to have that tattoo, you now know the details of his grizzly death. But more so, I really don’t see how the incredibly specific details were necessary for public consumption. I suppose I just see the whole thing as in incredibly poor taste.

Seeing that they found five WMDs up his ass, that’s something the country needs to know.

It was a routine screening, but on the off chance they’d discovered something bad I think it’s understandable that it got news coverage.

. . . so we are invading his ass next? :eek:

Oh wait, we’re cool- there’s no oil up there. At least. . . I don’t think there is. :dubious:

Well, at least he didn’t actually **SHOW **us, like LBJ did.

This is a good point. Really when the results are trivial it’s pretty unimportant, but it’s good in terms of public awareness.