Should people have a right to know about the health conditions ...

[kentuck]

of candidates? We know that John Kerry had to go thru surgery for prostate cancer. We would need to know if it re-occurred, would we not? Just like years ago, when Nixon's crowd attacked Thomas Eagleton, McGovern's VP choice, for psychiatric problems. Some conditions are serious enough that the people deserve to know before they vote, do you agree? If a candidate has seizures, would that be something that voters should know about that candidate? On the other hand, if he has a few allergies, I don't think that is necessarily any of our business? What do you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Allergies can be life threatening

so if you are paranoid enough do you want an potencial enemy to know that President X is allergic to peanuts?

Now zeisures, what is the origin of them? Gran Mal is not the same as those due to hypoglicemia (low blood sugar). In fact the latter is far more deadly in the short term than Grand Mal, which can be deadly, but... msot do resolve themselves and just leave the patient really sleepy for an hour or two.

There are medical conditions that may need to be told, but if you really asked me... NONE of my bloody business.. and that is what is wrong with the coutry.

I mean FDR had a grocery list of medical conditions, which the people did NOT really know off... he is considered one of the best presidents ever. JFK had many a medical condition and again he was very good... and you John Q Citizen had no idea of either.

That is my opinion, personally

[hlthe2b]

2. I think health conditions (even serious ones can be controlled), but

should be disclosed if life threatening or may impair judgement. By that score, (and particularly in light of Bush*), perhaps we should advocate for an independent mental health evaluation to rule out serious personality disorders and an IQ test! I may be kidding on that score, but then again......