Medical privacy versus enormous political power

Really? So the President is allowed no alcohol? No good food? (Due to feeling sleepy afterwards.) Must the President survive on gruel?

Fake news! Liberal doctors lie! Donald will live forever! He cures cancer with his tears!

And sometimes it is. Look at Ronald Reagan.

Given the rather extreme analogy you drew, I think maybe we have a misunderstanding here.

I don’t see how some sort of routine periodic test to ascertain whether our Congresscritters still have testamentary capacity could be likened to opposing needle exchanges. If the drugs they’re taking are helping them continue to have all or most of their marbles about them, then taking the drugs will help them continue to pass the test.

There’s a big difference between being President with early-stage Alzheimer’s and being a writer with early-stage Alzheimer’s.

If you’re the writer and you have good days and bad days, you can continue to write on the good days, and weather the bad days however you choose.

If you’re the President, a crisis won’t wait for your good days.

But we KNOW that Donald Trump is “at the top of his game” because his doctor told us so! So this isn’t even an issue, right?

Please. We’re here to fight ignorance, not promote it. Despite the hopes of and constant repetition by the Left, he wasn’t diagnosed with Alzheimer’s until after he’d left the White House. And, per Wikipedia, all four of the White House doctors said that they saw no evidence of Alzheimer’s while he was President.

Would those with enthusiasm for “periodic testing” or pharmaceutical outing of Thad Cochran or Donald Trump be quite as enthusiastic about applying the same standard to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg?

Maybe she was just indiscreet in comments to the media, or could it be early-stage dementia? Gosh, the people have a right to know what’s in her medical record!

Or not.

My take is that the pharmacist described in the OP acted in a grossly unprofessional manner and should at the least have to justify his behavior before the applicable pharmacy board.

Same question to you as to John Mace: what policy or standard of professionalism do you believe he violated?

That’s a pretty terrible comparison. Having a drink, or being a little sleepy after a large carb laden meal is a bit different from a degenerative neurological disease. Do you really think that alzheimer’s is just like having a BAL of .08, or feeling a little sleepy? If so, I suggest you look up what it does to one and their mental faculties.

The president should not drink to get drunk to excess. If there are foods that knock a person out, they should avoid those.

Being president is a 24/7 job. You ever hear of the “3am phone call”?

You have a point. If I found out that she had some sort of degenerative ailment or disease, I wouldn’t vote to re-elect her.

A lot of medicines are prescribed off-label. I take two medications, which, if you simply knew the names of them, could lead you to believe I am a diagnosed schizophrenic with epilepsy.

I’m not. If you knew the doses I took the medications at, you’d realize I probably take them off-label. It happens I take them for insomnia, but other possibilities are migraine preventative, and anti-depressant (albeit, I think the doses are still too low for the last).

There may be off-label uses for Alzheimer’s medications. A quick Google suggests that some of them might be useful for neuralgia. Another is used for social anxiety. Granted, someone holding office probably wouldn’t want it getting out that he had social anxiety, and if someone had neuralgia, questions as to the cause could affect a career, so really, there aren’t too many things you want getting out. But the point is, you can’t necessarily leap to “Alzheimer’s.” Not even the pharmacist can.

Someone could have an antibiotic for an STD, or a sinus infection, and it’s just as irresponsible for a pharmacist to announce that Sen. Such-&-such is being prescribed an “STD med,” because he has an antibiotic, as to say he has an “Alzheimer’s med,” because he has something that was developed for Alzheimer’s, but has off-label uses.

That’s a “bazinga,” right?

And that is why it would be a poor idea to rely on random reports from a pharmacist as to a person’s health, even is such things wouldn’t be illegal and unethical.

Of course, if random reports are all we get, and there is no official medical report, then the public will make the assumptions the public is want to make.

If you were running for office, and your pharmacist (illegally and unethically) let all and sundry know what you were taking, then the public may come to the conclusions that you have something you don’t.

The question was not, I do not believe, whether we should kick people out of office or disqualify them from running for being sick, but rather, letting the voters know what their medical status is, allowing them to use that information in their decision.

That’s why Jackmanii’s comment was irrelevant.

I’d love to!

You are aware that Supreme Court justices are not “re-elected,” right?

I think that is exactly what k9bfriender is alluding to.

Well, that’s what I assumed at first, but after the second post, I wasn’t so sure.

To clarify, I was saying that this would be useful information to voters so that they can make an informed decision. Jackmanii attempted to counter the idea of the public being aware of the health status of public officials by pointing out that RBG is old, and therefore sick, I guess is the implication.

I was simply pointing out that the SC is not elected, and so the public knowing about any illnesses is irrelevant, as she is not going to be judged by the public anyway. Whether congress may do something about a SC justice who is too ill to continue to serve but won’t resign is a completely different matter.

The other people that he named were people that were elected by the people (technically, one of them was elected by the electoral college, not the people, but anyway…), and he was directly comparing them to a SC justice, who is not only not re-elected, but not elected in first the place.