If you don’t understand the Ecological Fallacy, then we have nothing to discuss. Cheers.

If you demand all medical records on the grounds that it might allow you to detect a mental problem, then many people will infer that the absence of a medical sign implies that the person is fine.

Do you believe that Clinton’s “mis-speakings” are rooted in a TIA or left temporal infarct? I do not. I believe that she probably would pass all medical tests; she just happens to be full of ….

This argument has been used in many other areas, ranging from the military to fire depts, and it need not come up again, thanks.

I didn’t raise it. You did. You then falsely and inaccurately projected onto what I’ve written.

You can ask for all the records you want. You can also suggest that laws be enacted to require them. But please keep in mind that, as of right now, all you have are your wants.

Wow – thanks for sparing me from the erroneous belief I ruled by decree. DO I have to let Karl out of jail now?

any useful information we gain from *undemonstrated* links between *current* contraceptives and mental function

Factually incorrect. Whatever may be the case about large groups, certain individuals can (and do) demonstrate very relibale and repeatable histories of profound psychiatric symptoms when exposed to specific medications. These medications can include specific contraceptives. If the medical record for candidate Y shows psych hospitalization evey time they take contaceptive X, that’s relevant to assessing their brain function. Just as if the medical record shows that candidate gets psychotic every time he takes erectile dysfunction drug P.

Yep – some drugs affect reprodcutive function. SOme aspects of medical history touch (figuratively) upon how we use our genitals. SOme aspects of medical touch very pertinent to brain function touch on reproductive history. Other aspects – such as abortion – appear not to.

In a society with a long and dishonorable history of sexism, will wingers and reactionaries seek to use such issues to discriminate? Yep.

Is that a reason to stop seeking information pertinent to assessing brain function in the peopel who ask me to hire them to be President (or Veep – or governor?) Not as I see it.

Your mileage – and others’ may vary.

I’ll still be demanding the information. A planet’s a terrible thing to waste. And so – as we’ve seen tehr last eight years – is a Presidency.

Finally, you (as in: Kirk) seem to be implying that the statistical relationships that exist at the group level between various medical conditions and mental states will apply to individuals. There’s a name for this kind of thinking: the Ecological Fallacy.

Your conclusion is fallacious. Because any med can – in some person -cause profound perturbation of CNS function – full knowledge of the specific meds taken by a specific candidate and the candidate’s histroy of adverse reactions to meds is pertinent for that candidate.

If you choose to project onto this basic fact an irrelevant concern about population biology, that’s up to you.

As for what medical records to demand, one ought to consider the job. The president is expected to manage the most complex government on the planet; to hire, utilize and frequently joust with his Cabinet and agency heads, several of whom ”just know” they’d be better at the job than the president; to answer the red phone and decide whether to use the nuclear football; to model behavior traits we might all admire, especially in local, national or global emergencies, yet compete successfully in the political jungle; raise enormous funds for his campaign and his political party; devise and implement policies; deal with a budget and ”accounting system” that would challenge a score of Harvard B School profs; and manage scheduling demands that would make a Hollywood mogul cringe.

I’d say we should have all his or her records. That’s pretty much what corporate boards demand of their top executives these days, too. Including psych tests. Including psych. tests. VP candidates at many Fortune 200 company undergo several hours of written tests and interviews with someone described as having psychological training. Nowadays, that’s routine business. And those executives only have to run a company.

I’d write more, but I have the check the want ads. It seems I have a prejudice that makes me unfit for my job.

- a soon-to-be-ex- cognitive neuropsychologist

How much medical information can the public reasonably demand?

For President – the man or woman who can go to work and launch thousands of warheads – as much as is demanded of public servants who go to work with one gun on thier belt

Please defend the contention that we “the public” – the people with the responsibility to select one of these deeply flawed candidates – should know less about the President’s brain (the VP’s brain) than the LAPD knows about the recruits they hire.

And please pardon me in advance if I burst out laughing at the contention.

The speculation about tests for trace levels of drugs and chemicals is a straw man – the post refers to history of diagnoses and treatment.

WRT to DNA testing: Huntington’s chorea is a progressive degnerative brain disease that causes psychotic symptoms. VIctims are often in their late 40’s or older. Family history can suggest a risk for the disease: only genetic testing can reveal if a person does or does not have the gene that will casue them to have the disease.

Should a candidate have tested positive for the gene, thier risk of the disease is 100% (unless they die of something else first). If that shows in their medical history, that’s a tragedy. If a candidate with hidden Huntington’s comands the nuclear alresenal – or the next Katrina – and the psycotic symptoms have begun, that’s a catastrophe.

Once again: the election is a job interview.

Depsite all the hand-wringing and pearl clutching about how knowledge of biology pertinent to performance as Chief Executive should be withheld from the employers- the voters – I haven’t seen a whit of concern about the inherently discriminatory biological qualification to be President: age.

No one under 35 can be President (or at least chosen by the Electoral College).

It would be funny watching otherwise reasonable people show such reflexive distress about the concept of knowing about the Pres candidate’s brains if it were so sad.

A century ago, talking about heart disease was a social taboo. Half a century ago, cancer was a social taboo. Sadly, for many people in 2008, brain disease is a social taboo.

Brains are just another organ: like the thyroid, the gall bladder, and the colon. However, brains are uniquely the organ required for function as Chief Executive. In a society that has already accepted the right to know of the President’s exercise tolerance and colon polyps, the squickyness about acquiring adequate information would be risible – if it weren’t so tragic.

I look forward to the day when we’ll laugh at prejudices about brain disease the same way we now look sideways at past prejudices about talkkg of our loved ones’ cancer and heart disease.

Until then – until the prejudices about mental illness ahve left us – I’ll probably find myself once again explaining the radical concept that we, the Presidents’ employers, are every bit entitled to know about the psychiatric and cognitve condition of those who seek to be hired as is the local police force to know the psychiatric and cognitive condition of the rawest recruit in the local police academy.

Personally, I can’t wait for the day to come.

You can ask for all the records you want. You can also suggest that laws be enacted to require them. But please keep in mind that, as of right now, all you have are your wants.

Finally, you (as in: Kirk) seem to be implying that the statistical relationships that exist at the group level between various medical conditions and mental states will apply to individuals. There’s a name for this kind of thinking: the Ecological Fallacy.

The oh, so openly stage-managed affair, as if releasing a state secret to a select Congressional committee fueled two fantasies dangerous to our political health: 1) that he had released adequate information, which he didn’t; and 2) that doing it the way he did was proper and protected his “legitimate” privacy interests.

All of which says there’s enough doubt about his prognosis that it would effect an appreciable number of votes, and he doesn’t want anyone to know it.

The concern that women would likely fare worse than men, if both were to be subjected to total disclosure of medical facts, is reasonable.

We should think through what science is now capable of. DNA testing can be used to detect or predict many medical conditions. There are tests to discover even trace levels of drugs and chemicals, or their byproducts, in a person’s body; some of those substances may not have been intentionally ingested. (A chemical recently reported to be common in drinking bottles may affect an endocrine level and hence may have behavioral effects.) How much medical information can the public reasonably demand?

Thanks for your constructive contribution to today’s discussion. You raise an interesting point, and I too see no reason why a candidate’s history of abortion should be pertinent.

from comment 29