Um…I don’t think I want to know that. Years ago I was talking with coworkers and were just lightheartedly telling “injury stories”. You know, like “Once I fell out of a tree and broke my leg” “Aw man, I can beat that, my brother smashed my hand with brick while were playing and broke two fingers” etc.
In walks our boss and he joins in "I got kicked in th nuts in a bar fight. They had to remove a testicle in surgery! Hahaha!"
tumbleweed blows by
Stunned silence until someone said “Sarge, I didn’t need to know that about you.”
You lost me.
My position on the issue is simply that the Surgeon-General’s office should certify as to whether or not a presidential nominee is medically fit to be president given legislated criteria. This would not be binding on a nominee who could appeal to the public by releasing a full medical history if he/she so wishes.
I was thinking the same thing, except the Surgeon General is appointed by the sitting prez, and so there might be a certain conflict of interest there.
But in anycase, whether the Surgeon General or someone else, I imagine it wouldn’t be that hard for both campaigns to agree on a doctor they both trust to review their medical records.
Bringing a political appointee and Congress into this process would only make it more complicated.
There IS a congressional attending physician, Dr. John Eisold. He refuses to discuss patients with the press, but he’s examined Obama, McCain and Biden, and as such, he’s referenced in stories about the medical records for all three.