Controversy churned in recent weeks over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s health.
Recently in Ohio, Republican standard bearer Donald Trump declared Clinton “lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and all of the many adversaries we face.” While Clinton has a public history of health scares, evidence suggests Trump brazenly is leveraging her medical past as an empty political shiny object.
Trump provided no direct evidence of Clinton’s supposed failing health, but she does have a history of health issues. In 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion from a fall due to dehydration and gastroenteritis as well as blood clots in her leg and outside her brain.
Conspiracy theorists claim Clinton never recovered from these clots and is cloaking compromised health. Based on her history of blood clots, however, Clinton most likely manages her symptoms by taking a blood thinner, such as aspirin or heparin.
Furthermore, in a letter released last month doctors declared Clinton fully recovered and pronounced her “in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as the president of the United States.”
{mosads}Recently, however, a board-certified anesthesiologist penned a memo claiming that Clinton suffers from a neurological disorder, specifically, Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s is a scary disease. It impairs decision-making and problem solving abilities. Unacceptable deficits for the man or woman whose finger literally rests on a button that could launch a nuclear war.
Yet, such a diagnosis should be made by a board-certified neurologist — not an anesthesiologist. And especially not by an anesthesiologist who has never physically examined or spoken with the patient. Dr. Fiona Gupta, a New Jersey neurologist, agrees. Recently, on Sean Hannity’s show, Gupta noted, “it’s just so hard to speculate based on snippets” of behavior observed in videos and pictures.
In fact, it is straight up unethical, argues Dr. Art Caplan, head of medical ethics at the New York University School of Medicine. “I think it’s morally pernicious and irresponsible to diagnose anyone for anything you haven’t examined personally,” he told U.S. News & World Report. “It is unprofessional. It is pointless. And it gives a false impression that somehow medicine is a version of psychic power — you can do it from a distance. I think it’s just wrong, flat out utterly wrong, to do it.”
Whether it is diagnosing Trump with narcissistic personality disorder or diagnosing Clinton with a neurological disorder, it is unethical to do so without a proper examination. It is even more reckless for these physicians to publicly announce a medical diagnosis when they have absolutely no scientific evidence on which to stand.
Not only does it border on a possible Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) violation — disclosing potentially true medical information without a patient’s consent — but it is also violates the Physician’s Code of Ethics. It specifically violates the first, second and fourth principles. The first principle demands care that is compassionate and respects the patient’s dignity and rights.
A public claim that Clinton has Parkinson’s disease mocks both. The second principle focuses on responsibility; a speculative claim certainly isn’t. Finally, the fourth principle directs physicians to respect patients’ rights and privacy. Without Clinton’s consent, publicly revealing a potential medical ailment reeks of disrespect.
The only individuals who are qualified to inform the public about Clinton’s health is Hillary or the doctors who are treating her — not a board-certified anesthesiologist, and especially not Donald Trump. Furthermore, the request from some journalists that presidential candidates should fully disclose their medical information is foolish. Voters do not need to know, for example, if Trump suffers from impotence or if Clinton has incontinence. Some medical conditions, however, should be made public to the American people if they influence a candidate’s capacity to perform the job.
It is Clinton’s ethical responsibility — not Trump’s — to inform the public if she will be too impaired to perform her obligations as president. Clinton has a duty as a public servant to inform the public and put its needs before her own.
Because neurological disorders can severely impact the decision-making process, she must acknowledge that a medical diagnosis, such as Parkinson’s, as many speculate, could ultimately affect the American people in a negative way.
Clinton’s doctors have reassured the American people that she is physically and mental fit to be president. As long as these doctors and Clinton have not committed fraud, the American people should accept their expert opinions over the opinions of the less informed.
Dr. A.J. Marsden is a former U.S. Army surgical nurse and psychologist at Beacon College in Leesburg, Fla., the first accredited college to award bachelor’s degrees primarily to students with learning disabilities and ADHD. Views expressed are her own.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.