This is topic Should those who have been treated for 'mental illness' be considered for president? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Was listening to Sean Hannity today and for the second day in a row, he was harping on Dean's statement in People that he had suffered anxiety attacks and sought treatment. Apparently after Dean had won a gubernatorial race, he suffered some anxiety attacks and got treatment for them and hasn't had them since. Hannity didn't come right out and say it, but he certainly implied very heavilly that this was something that disqualified Dean for the presidency.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Just thinking about it, someone could say, well, mental illness is just like a physical illness. Sometimes people suffer mental scrapes of the knees, so to speak, and they have to get them treated. No harm, no foul. Happens to everyone.
The problem, obviously, is that with mental illness you are taking into account matters of perception. What if Dean got the heeby jeebies during some kind of 9/11 type crisis and was unable to respond, or his responce wasn't 'rational' because of his panic attack?
Another problem in judging this is that because of the inherent invisible nature of the problem, it's hard to say whether it really is a problem or is just, say, stress.
I will vote for Dean if he gets the Democratic nomination, but I must admit that it does make me wonder how this is percieved by other people.
[ January 16, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's better than electing someone whose mental illness has gone untreated.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's why we have a vice president, if the president were suddenly incapacitated.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I think it would be legitimate to exclude people who have suffered serious mental illnesses, but then most such people are never really "cured". (And that exclusion would best be done by not voting for them.)
Arguably a great many of us have minor mental problems that go untreated--small obsessions or compulsions, irrational fears--and quite a few problems for which people are treated are no more serious than these.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Excluding people who have a mental illness but are stable and maintaining stability from the presidential office is unwarranted. This idea what people who have a mental illness, even when stable, could lose it at any second, is part of the stigma of mental illness.
No, people are not cured, just as people aren't cured from diabetes, either. But the right treatment is provided and the continuing treatment that leads to stability is management of the illness.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Another thing to point out is that substance addiction is also a psychological (and in some ways medical) condition. You can be a recovered addict or alcholic, but you are never "cured." One drink, one hit, and you're back to being an active addict.
Those people couldn't hold office, either? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, they shouldn't. Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
Anybody remember what happened to Thomas Eagleton, vice-presidential candidate for the democrats on the McGovern ticket?
He admitted to having had electro-shock and that was the end of his being on the McGovern ticket.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Are anxiety attacks the same thing as panic attacks? What exactly qualifies an "anxiety attack"?
Surely the seriousness of these should be expanded on before judgement can be passed. Obviously, if these "anxiety attacks" incapacitated him for several days, this is more serious than periodical hours over the same time period.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Anxiety attacks and panic attacks are pretty much the same thing, in my (fairly extensive) experience. It's just that panic attacks are considered to be longer and more severe than anxiety attacks - or at least that's how a doctor defined the situation to me.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about a president who had had anxiety or panic attacks, having had more than enough of them myself. In my experience, they come either in anticipation of some crisis, or in the aftermath of the crisis. Within a crisis itself, the individual's attention is elsewhere and he or she doesn't have the time to think about him or herself, which is when these sorts of reactions seem to come up.
This, however, does not mean that I'm comfortable with the idea of a Dean presidency. He tends to bug the heck out of me, and I am supporting another candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Oh, and yes, I do remember the Eagleton thing. Sheesh, what a mess.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Should someone that has lost their leg(s)/Arm(s) be disqualified from holding office? Someone wheelchair bound? How about those with heart conditions? High Blood pressure. Shingles? Epileptics? Sickle Cell anemia? Dyslexia?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If any of those disorders were severe enough, yes.
Edit: by the will of the voters, not by any written law.
[ January 17, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Better disqualify about 30 percent of the population then. Maybe even more. Heck, Cheney has had surgery. Should he have been put to pasture? Not even commenting on his political shenannigans (if any). Strictly speaking about his health. Where and how has it affected his performance?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So in order to be viable as a political candidate, one must be in superb physical health? *rude noise* I finally begin to understand how the heck we ended up with the Governator.
What ridiculous nonsense! I'd would far prefer a politician with a known condition -- physical, psychological, addiction, or some combination of the above -- that is being successfully treated, than one who is afraid to admit to having such a condition, and is therefore not being treated.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
In my opinion, it takes a special kind of mental illness to run for an office like the President. Maybe the more valid question is... should we elect anyone who is not receiving treatment for their condition? Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If their condition is incapacitating and they are not receiving treatment, I don't think they would be a serious contender for the presidency.
If they have a mental illness and have brought it under control with treatment, I would not be opposed to them running--although I expect they would learn new things about their illness while in office, due to the stress involved.
If their mental illness is not incapacitating, then it might not be considered as a mental illness by most--just another quirk, perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many politicians cycle through minor hypomanic and depressive episodes. Hypomania might be what keeps them going through extended campaign road trips.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Sadly, the ambitions of pharmaceutical companies have led to medical disorders like "panic attacks", "social anxiety disorder" (a fancy term for shyness) and ADHD to become house-hold terms.
Speaking of ADHD, Eli Lilly is currently heavily promoting its warmed-over Prozac derivative, Strattera, in a vague ad that makes just about anyone wonder if they have ADHD.
I admit that I am naive about Dean's anxiety problems other than what is described in this thread, but I hardly think something that minor should exclude someone from being President, unless of course, the condition becomes debilitating enough to cause a loss of ability and/or confidence.
However, our Presidents have gone from one drug to another to help calm their nerves in times of stress, whether it is tobacco, cigarettes, alcohol, or benzodaizepines (like Valium). Keep in mind, social norms have historically been to turn to alcohol or cigarettes to calm one's self.
Just imagine how much Presidents have drank and smoked in times of crisis. At least Dean is seeking help and not burying his problems.
I would feel more comfortable electing someone who faces a medical condition in modern terms and seeks treatment, as opposed to someone who has a clean record in the media, but is a closet psychotic.
P.S. Given a choice, (Dean/Bush) I'd still vote none of the above.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My guess is that it's caffeine and adrenaline
Alucard, my psychiatrist actually said that Stattera could trigger a manic episode in a bipolar much more easily that a stimulant (if the bipolar was comorbid with ad/hd), hence why I'm on Ritalin LA.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Better disqualify about 30 percent of the population then. Maybe even more.
Can I go with the "more"? Can we disqualify about 85% of the current political population, just for good measure?
I think that would improve my mental health, considerably.
Posted by Valkyrie (Member # 5980) on :
I have ADD and I take strattera. Its done wonders. I would be doing horribly acidemically if were not for it. Many kids who have add or adhd just get put down as truble makers or daydreamers. Sadly to funtion in todays society it is sometimes nessisary to alter your normal state . But with out it I would be lost. Its horrible not being able to lisen or consintrate.
But im still a person and a citizen. I am intelegent and consences (and modest ). To bar people who have had any sort of learning or mental disability would be ludicris. If voters do not think they are capable of being the presedint then they would not vote for them. A child could run for all it matters. most people would not think s/he would be able to handle the job... and so s/he would not be elected! Wow the wonders of voting...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I think our CURRENT president has AD/HD.
"And onto our new tax plan--Oh! Look at the kitty!"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
LOL, mack
Well, I'm on Adderall for my ADD, so we've got most of the treatment options covered here at Hatrack.
I think it's entirely possible some people are being given drugs for ADD that don't really have the disorder. On the flip side, I think it's vastly under reported in females, since many of the "checklists" for ADD are geared toward hyperactive young males.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. But with out it I would be lost. Its horrible not being able to lisen or consintrate.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
). To bar people who have had any sort of learning or mental disability would be ludicris. If voters do not think they are capable of being the presedint then they would not vote for them. A child could run for all it matters. most people would not think s/he would be able to handle the job... and so s/he would not be elected! Wow the wonders of voting...