This is pretty explosive and relevant, as John McCain has been treated for four instances of skin cancer, melanoma, and while he released a huge file of full medical information in 1999 during his first run for the White House, he has not done so since then.
New York Times reporter Lawrence K. Altman, a physician, has a fascinating piece that has interviews with various doctors who have been discussing with reporters the specific August 19, 2000 operation on the Arizona senator’s face and neck (clearly visible today — he has a long scar on his face and swelling in his left cheek) that they feel deserves more scrutiny.
Since the 2008 campaign began, doctors not connected with Mr. McCain’s case have expressed intense interest in the extent of the face and neck surgery that he underwent on Aug. 19, 2000, at the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale in Arizona.More below the fold.Some of these doctors have noted in e-mail messages and in comments to reporters that the surgery appeared to be so extensive that they were surprised his melanoma was not more serious — perhaps Stage III, which would give him a bleaker prognosis. These doctors said they would be surprised to learn that such an operation would be performed without evidence that the melanoma had spread.
But a number of melanoma experts said in interviews that such an operation was understandable according to the medical standards of 2000 and that the extensive surgery did not necessarily imply Stage III melanoma.
“It was not out of line,” said one of the experts, Dr. Richard L. Shapiro, a melanoma surgeon at New York University. Dr. Shapiro added that he would feel more comfortable in making a judgment if he saw a full pathology report.
While McCain’s age has been widely discussed (he would be 72 if he assumed office; that would make him the oldest president), but his physical health has not been widely reported on during the 2008 campaign until this piece. It’s relevant because of questions about survival rates after a particular stage of melanoma.
The melanoma on Mr. McCain’s left temple was 2 centimeters in diameter and 0.22 centimeters deep, and was fully excised with wide margins, 2 centimeters in each direction, his campaign staff said.UPDATE: Boy this one hit a nerve down in the comments, but, given the subject matter, I’m not surprised. I’ll pull a couple of my responses up here in the post……To determine whether the cancer had spread to lymph nodes in his neck, the Mayo doctors injected a radioactive dye into the melanoma in a procedure known as a sentinel node biopsy hours before surgery. The doctors waited for the dye to flow in the lymph fluid to the node in the neck to which the cancer is statistically most likely to spread first.
Then they used a gamma counter — an instrument like a Geiger counter — to identify the node, and removed it. Pathologists quickly froze the tissue while Mr. McCain was on the operating table, looked at it through a microscope and did not detect cancerous cells.
But this kind of biopsy is not 100 percent reliable for melanoma, partly because the chemical stains that help pathologists identify breast and other cancers in frozen sections do not work as well on melanomas. Also, the cancer could have spread to a nonsentinel node.
The article clearly doesn’t make a case for something sinister going on, but points out the lack of information on the topic in 2008 is newsworthy.
It’s not as if there isn’t a significant history of presidents hiding potentially compromising medical conditions (Wilson, a stroke, Reagan, Altzheimers, Roosevelt, polio-based paralysis, Kennedy, Addison’s disease), so the question is not an “attack” — it would be prudent to ask how or if health-related problems would have an impact or not on that 3AM phone call.
Commenter Soopermouse took great offense at the messenger for talking about the article at all:
Are you so fucking eager to be mainstream that you have to go become as bad as the worst right wing press? Or are you fucking Obamaites so completely insane that you believe that anyone running against your holy candidate should be maligned and othered in the most disgusting possible way just for them daring to be in the path of Holy Barack?
I see you just want to rant, go right ahead. I cannot see how this post is considered “mainstream.” I’m not going to even address the “fucking Obamaites” nonsense, since 1) there’s nothing holy about him and 2) I’m not calling for his campaign to discuss this as an issue.
Cancer has a way of affecting a lot of people. More and more by the day. I wonder what would happen if it affected you or someone you loved. Would you liek to see them othered and devalued, othered as something less than human for something that has no relevance on who they are and what they can do?
My mother died of lung cancer in 1997; so yes it has affected someone I love and that pain stays with me today. Where in this post does discussing the issue at all devalues John McCain?
He’s running for a position of power that none of us (or our loved ones) will attain and that position has inordinate control over all of our lives. The NYT story is relevant - you can certainly judge it for taste or not, but the fact is there are medical professionals who do know about his case (earlier records of which McCain himself released, suggesting he concurs the issue is relevant), and they are discussing the issue.
The fact is that all of our personal medical information is (allegedly) protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA - FAQs here). The doctors in this piece cannot discuss to the media without personal medical information without explicit consent to release from the person in question.
So health information is considered private under the law — and there’s ample reason why that law should exist, given private companies would love to be able to trade that information and judge us by it just as they already do with countless data about our lives.
The fact that this post — or the article or both — seems in bad taste, or is hitting close to home for some of you suggests the underlying power of that information to be used to prejudge someone’s fitness for a job. And that’s why we have the Americans for Disabilities Act. Our health status does indeed have ramifications on how we are judged by others. Again, McCain doesn’t have to release any of his medical information — the fact is that he did in 1999 to ward off concerns, and press requests that he do the same in this election cycle have been refused without reasons given.
How is that not a story? It may lead nowhere if McCain chooses to release his records and he has a clean bill of health, and the press indeed can ask the same of any candidate.
51 Responses to “NYT reports on McCain’s melanoma”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
That is why Huckabee stayed in as long as he did. That bafoon will be the defacto nominee.
I’m a five year post-treatment cancer survivor and I’m considered cured. I imagine, he’s in a similar situation.
Look, I don’t like McCain anymore than you do, but this is not a good avenue of attack and will almost certainly backfire.
Those of us who are not oncologists would be wise to not conjecture on McCain’s prognosis.
McCain is too weak
to that, he will not speak
In steps ol Huckabee
who will be the nominee
A presidential candidate’s health is a relevant issue, and while I have no authority to make any case as to McCain’s current condition, Lawrence Altman has had access to McCain’s past records; others at the Mayo Clinic cited in the article have been discussing the issue for some time now, surprised the press has not to date inquired more on the topic. From the same article:
The article clearly doesn’t make a case for something sinister going on, but pointing out the lack of information on the topic in 2008 is newsworthy.It’s not as if there isn’t a significant history of presidents hiding potentially compromising medical conditions (Wilson, a stroke, Reagan, Altzheimers, Roosevelt, polio-based paralysis, Kennedy, Addison’s disease), so the question is not an “attack” — it would be prudent to ask how or if health-related problems would have an impact or not on that 3AM phone call.
I agree with this. I live with a chronic illness, and honestly assessing what I can deliver and what accommodations I need is critical.
But the article still makes me uncomfortable. This is a political campaign, and I doubt that McCain’s health will be addressed in an even-handed just-assessing-the-situation manner. I smell ableism on the wind (even more than usual).
I need to think about this more…
Considering McCain’s age I think he should release his medical records. Four bouts of melanoma sounds quite serious. At the least, it should make us look very, very closely at his VP pick.
Unstable Isotope took the ghoulish words right out of my mouth.
At the least, it should make us look very, very closely at his VP pick.
That’s right. You’ll recall that FDR was really ill when he ran for re-election in that last term, and he died in office, with Truman taking the wheel.
You’d have to be brain-dead not to think that this isn’t on the minds of many people about McCain; whether it’s voiced or reported or not is another matter.
The VP selection is obviously critical to those attending the super-secret fundie suck-up meeting McCain spoke in front of the other day, so why shouldn’t we be concerned about it as well?
It’s sadly true, SKM and Bicmon. We have to know who we’re electing. If McCain stands a poor chance of surviving a term in office, we’d essentially be electing his vice presidential candidate. That is, if anyone here was voting for him. I have no interest in dwelling on the matter, but those considering a vote for him (swing voters, primarily) would be wise to consider this information.
Ableism may indeed enter into this. I’d be the first to advise against voting for a candidate’s health. Any illnesses not significantly affecting a candidate’s life expectency are irrelevant, and I naively hope that that wouldn’t preclude a vote for a qualified individual. Unfortunately, for McCain at least, this particular illness, if it exists, is one voters should know about.
Sorry; illnesses was a poor choice of words in that last paragraph of my comment. I should have said: Any disabilities or illnesses not significantly affecting a candidate’s life expectency are irrelevant, and I naively hope that that wouldn’t preclude a vote for a qualified individual. *
Obviously there are number of disabilities that one can not reasonably call illnesses. My apologies.
I dunno, I get a squicky feeling about criticising on this level. I mean, his shitty policies give us so much to work on as it is….
It just feels a bit like the ageism that already plagues a lot of discussion about him. I just don’t like it. There is so much else to attack.
“[O]thers at the Mayo Clinic cited in the article have been discussing the issue for some time now, surprised the press has not to date inquired more on the topic.”
The famously ironic medical sense of humor, I suppose.
It’s not unduly ghoulish, I think, if we give him an adequate opportunity to respond, after reflection and consultation with his physicians. We are hiring someone for a four-year contract; capacity to complete the contract is a reasonable inquiry for any candidate, whether it’s for the presidency or for running a corporation. We cannot give him a one year with an option to extend health permitting; the constitution is clear, and we have almost a whole year between now and the President’s inauguration in the first place.
I’m not sure what the post or Times article has anything to do with an attack. In the case of a position as singularly powerful as that of President, evaluation of someone’s fitness to serve includes everything: the psychological, physical, emotional. I don’t see any inherently unfair prejudice in weighting a candidate’s health as a major factor in casting a vote for her/him. Not everyone agrees that the risk posed by a person with a seizure disorder piloting a passenger plane outweighs that person’s right to pursue a career as a pilot. But many people do, and it’s not a slight against epileptics when there are potentially dire consequences for other people.
That said, yes, trying to evaluate the specific health problems of others even with all the facts doesn’t seem especially useful. It was sheer luck that kept Bill Clinton’s well-known penchant for fast food from catching up with him until after he left office.
In terms of McCain’s health, I’d actually be at least as concerned about his notorious temper. Anger is pretty widely acknowledged as a major cardiac risk factor as well as a possible symptom of vascular disease. Also, I don’t think it’s ageist to note that he shuffles and speaks like an elderly man, something Reagan never did even as he started downhill toward the end.
Melanoma? Y2K? Um, if this were what was going to kill him … he’d be dead all ready. That swelling may be the result of the resected tissue including lymph nodes - it isn’t there to help drainage.
If he has a second occurance going on, well, maybe it is a problem. But melanoma doesn’t wait around and lurk for long. It is baaaaad shit.
One more thing: we know that Mc Cain is older and has health issues. Obama could drop dead from a heart attack on day 3 in office, and so could Hillary. My 66-year-old mother just went from healthy to sick in two weeks, and sick to dead in one more week and there was no predicting that.
It is not well advised to focus on what you know to the exclusion of what you don’t. Anybody remember the “young, vital” Pope John Paul I?
I feel like the question of McCain’s health is extremely important, and it is suspicious and weird that he hasn’t released his records, but the article does a pretty bad job of speculating about it without concrete facts — I wouldn’t be surprised if this gets turned around on the NY Times, being called another unfounded “smear” on McCain like the lobbyist thing.
Ms Kate says:
I think this isn’t such great reasoning. Obviously, we can’t perfectly predict the health outcomes (or temperaments, etc) of any of these people. Any of them could drop dead for any reason. But we do know that McCain is statistically more likely to drop dead within 4 years than Obama or Clinton because of his age and (possibly) his health. Just because we can’t predict with 100% certainty that none of these people are going to drop dead for some reason, that doesn’t mean we should ignore relevant information about the likelihood of it!
I would point out that a few weeks back we were talking about the likelihood of Obama being assassinated and what we would like to see as his VP picks to either make him “assassin-proof” or ensure good government without him.
We called that realism. Talking about McCain’s health is more ghoulish?
This may sound petty and I apologize, I don’t mean it to be, but: is there any record of McCain having a major stroke in the past? I watched his “acceptance of nomination for the presidential candidate” speech on Tuesday and noticed that the left side of his face as well as his left eye looked droopy. I’ve seen similar signs on stroke victims and I wondered about that.
Just wondering.
This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read at pandagon, and lately you guys have managed to turn my stomach upside down on an almost daily basis.
What in the hell is wrong with you people? Are you so fucking eager to be mainstream that you have to go become as bad as the worst right wing press? Or are you fucking Obamaites so completely insane that you believe that anyone running against your holy candidate should be maligned and othered in the most disgusting possible way just for them daring to be in the path of Holy Barack?
fact: in this current day and age, 71 is no longer such an advanced age and cancer doesn’t automatically mean death. It’s not like Mc Cain can’t afford medical care.
What you are doing is simple: the same thing as the employer who won’t hire a candidate because she has had cancer. That and a nice side of ageism to go with it.
i knew for a while now that Pandagon wa sno longer a feminist blog, but it does seem that freeperism is contagious in your case: I feel dirty and slimied just by reading this piece of shit.
Cancer has a way of affecting a lot of people. More and more by the day. I wonder what would happen if it affected you or someone you loved. Would you liek to see them othered and devalued, othered as something less than human for something that has no relevance on who they are and what they can do?
I’m not even a fucking McCain fan, but nobody deserves such a treatment. And as someone who has been through cancer and has seen how it demotes you from the human being status, here’s a big old “Fuck you”
and quite frankly, for someone who advocates to have the Government out of people’s bedrooms, you should consider staying the fuck out of their health records as well.
Hypocrisy is wonderful, isn’t it?
The breathless bolding in the final quote (which was not in the original and was not indicated as new - sloppy) puts this over the edge of good taste for me.
There is a real story here but the way this is presented is poor.
IMO, it would be better if there were a REQUIRED full disclosure of health records and fianncial/tax records for ALL potential candidates when they first announce/ apply for the job as president. Then we don’t have this sort of potential derailing “info or lack thereof” later on.
To do so at any other time within a campaign is too distracting. And while I agree with the sentiment of ageism, all of this should be old-hat this far into the campaign. In the case of hiring a POTUS, it IS relevant- as is the candidate’s health and financial information/connections.
Before you spit out more vitriol, soopermouse, please note that I said ALL potential candidates, not just Mr McCain. I think the NYT article poorly addressed this “story”, making it more about “what is he HIDING???” than anything else.
Cancer is no laughing matter whatsoever; I worked with far too many patients who didn’t survive. And right now, one of my dearest friends who was proclaimed “cancer free” last June is dying of an inoperable tumor in her spine discovered in December- she will most likely not see her 35th birthday. I understand your rage at this horrible disease far too well, as well as anyone you see as dismissing its victims’ humanity.
Are you so fucking eager to be mainstream that you have to go become as bad as the worst right wing press? Or are you fucking Obamaites so completely insane that you believe that anyone running against your holy candidate should be maligned and othered in the most disgusting possible way just for them daring to be in the path of Holy Barack?
I see you just want to rant, go right ahead. I cannot see how this post is considered “mainstream.” I’m not going to even address the “fucking Obamaites” nonsense, since 1) there’s nothing holy about him and 2) I’m not calling for his campaign to discuss this as an issue.
Cancer has a way of affecting a lot of people. More and more by the day. I wonder what would happen if it affected you or someone you loved. Would you liek to see them othered and devalued, othered as something less than human for something that has no relevance on who they are and what they can do?
My mother died of lung cancer in 1997; so yes it has affected someone I love and that pain stays with me today. Where in this post does discussing the issue at all devalues John McCain?
He’s running for a position of power that none of us (or our loved ones) will attain and that position has inordinate control over all of our lives. The NYT story is relevant - you can certainly judge it for taste or not, but the fact is there are medical professionals who do know about his case (earlier records of which McCain himself released, suggesting he concurs the issue is relevant), and they are discussing the issue.
The fact is that all of our personal medical information is (allegedly) protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA - FAQs here). The doctors in this piece cannot discuss to the media without personal medical information without explicit consent to release from the person in question.
So health information is considered private under the law — and there’s ample reason why that law should exist, given private companies would love to be able to trade that information and judge us by it just as they already do with countless data about our lives.
The fact that this post — or the article or both — seems in bad taste, or is hitting close to home for some of you suggests the underlying power of that information to be used to prejudge someone’s fitness for a job. And that’s why we have the Americans for Disabilities Act. Our health status does indeed have ramifications on how we are judged by others.
Again, McCain doesn’t have to release any of his medical information — the fact is that he did in 1999 to ward off concerns, and press requests that he do the same in this election cycle have been refused without reasons given.
How is that not a story? It may lead nowhere if McCain chooses to release his records and he has a clean bill of health, and the press indeed can ask the same of any candidate.
I’m not qualified to assess McCain’s melanoma (although experts don’t seem to be too concerned), but his age alone should be unsettling: McCain has a much greater chance (~30%) of not making it through the next eight years.
For all I know, he’ll outlive us all, but people should be seriously considering his VP as an understudy relative to any other candidate.
By the way, Huckabee would be the least likely to die in office…
Hey soopermouse, read Samantha Vimes post 2 above yours.
During John Edwards’ second campaign, a lot was made his Elizabeth’s cancer. So why is her health an issue, but Sen. McCain’s off-limits?
well, look at all of the articles that have been written about Dick Cheney and his many health scares and heart medications. Read about how old time friends don’t recognize him and can’t relate to his surly attitude and actions.
To elect a person that has the great odds of being heavily treated and/or medicated while serving is just bizarre. Yes, a vote for McCain is a vote for his successor and if that’s ghoulish then so be it. He IS old. Recognizing that fact isn’t being ‘ageist’, it’s being practical.
How many people would buy a car that was rated to completely die within a few years of ownership? Not me.
Yes, it is ghoulish and yes it is macabre but we are talking about the republican successor to the worst president in the history of the United States of America. To think that Bushist ministers will have a say in McCain’s running mate makes me wonder if McCain didn’t make a deal with the GOP to get to be president before he does die.
If we were talking about the president of Krispy Kreme Donuts, then it would really matter but I don’t want a president in chemo with nothing to lose and a bad case of ‘chemo brain’ pushing ‘the button’ because he’s having a bad day. I especially don’t want a president with the temper that McCain has being in that shape loosed on the planet. There is no telling what he would do.
Bush Sr. puking in a dignitaries lap was almost comic compared to what could happen under McCain.
His age, like his experience IS AN ISSUE! And it SHOULD BE.
Exactly. I find the deference to his age interesting. ‘Hands off the old guy’ but ‘pile on the black guy’? It just doesn’t make sense…
“So why is her health an issue, but Sen. McCain’s off-limits?”
Silly! Elizabeth Edwards’ health is important because she might have become First Lady. If she were to die in office, who would make sure White House social events go smoothly?
After all, there is no Vice First Lady.
Besides, McCain is a Republican. That’s all we need to know about him…
Terri said what I was going to say. We sure heard a lot about Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer. And we hears a lot of people’s … opinions … about the Edwards’ choice to continue campaigning in spite of her recurrence/metastasis. A lot of those opinions were unarguably, and disgustingly, attacks. This post, by comparison, could hardly even be called critique.
Besides the small fact that McCain is actually, oh, I don’t know, RUNNING for president. So it’s actually, you know, relevant.
[Full disclosure: I say this as an almost-one-year survivor of Stage II breast cancer]
Pam
Ih health records were a personal matter, you should not have joined the pack in requesting he releases them. You haven’t, and onthe contrary, published morbid speculations on the state of his illness.
With a glee that can be seen from across the pond.
And don’t get me the ”
The fact that this post — or the article or both — seems in bad taste, or is hitting close to home for some of you suggests the underlying power of that information to be used to prejudge someone’s fitness for a job. And that’s why we have the Americans for Disabilities Act. Our health status does indeed have ramifications on how we are judged by others.
”
bullshit, because you have reinforced that mentality with your post. If you are so eager to publish everything that’s a story, where is the story on Hillary being called a monster by an official ( ex) of the Obama campaign?
And yes, your personal political stand in this election is incredibly relevant, since you and the rest of Pandagon’s staff have managed to betray us so well in this campaign, by supporting a candidate who is running a mysoginistioc campaign in full knowledge of it. Where is your post on the “periodically down” joke Obama made ? Have you fallen so fucking low that you believe it is ok to say in so many words “it’s not OK for an old guy who may have cancer to run for POTUS”?
PinkyLeftBrain
”
don’t want a president in chemo with nothing to lose and a bad case of ‘chemo brain’ pushing ‘the button’ because he’s having a bad day”
Fuck you
Let’s rephrase this so you can understand what a fucking asshole you are
“don’t want a president on the rag and a bad case of PMS pushing the button because she’s having a bad day”.
Fuck you very much
Yes, Mc Cain’s health is off limits. Joining the ghoul choir for some cheap shots is disgusting, and you have managed to lower yourself to levels never before reached.
Another decent person who turned into a media hiena.
“Yes, Mc Cain’s health is off limits. Joining the ghoul choir for some cheap shots is disgusting, and you have managed to lower yourself to levels never before reached.”
soopermouse, you’re wrong. McCain’s health is a valid issue, just like Obama’s, Clinton’s, and anybody else who runs for “The Office of the Chief Executive of the United States”.
This is a job with huge consequences for America and for the world.
I say this as a two-time winner of the cancer lottery myself…
This may be just me, but soopermouse sounds like a concern troll to me. Who on earth gets so worked up over “controversial” statements like “old people die more frequently”? Because I have grandparents over 80, and it’s something to keep in mind. Not like “he he he, inheritance” but like ” hm, better to go visit now; I can go out with friends another time”. Ooo. Ageist.
Also, I’m not sure if it’s more demeaning to women to to cancer sufferers/survivors to compare PMS to chemo. I’m pretty sure someone’s being belittled, I’m just not sure who.
Here is poopermuse’s issue right here, in a NUTshell:
Or are you fucking Obamaites so completely insane that you believe that anyone running against your holy candidate should be maligned and othered in the most disgusting possible way just for them daring to be in the path of Holy Barack?
You see, people here actually campaigned for and VOTED for Obama - even though poopernose TOLD them they needed to do something else! Horrors of Democracy!
BTW (dropped end of comment here), please notice that IF you search threads on the election:
1) not everyone commenting in this thread was an Obama supporter
2) not every Obama supporter supported Pam
3) not every Clinton supporter disagrees with Pam
So, explain again what supporting Obama has to do with maligning McCain’s medical status??
If we were talking about the president of Krispy Kreme Donuts, then it would really matter but I don’t want a president in chemo with nothing to lose and a bad case of ‘chemo brain’ pushing ‘the button’ because he’s having a bad day.
I disagree with soopermouse’s general position in this thread, but I have to say that s/he is absolutely right that the above quote is horribly offensive.
If Huckabee becomes the nominee, then the fact that McCain is a death risk is a big fucking deal, it seems.
I think it’s Pam pushing buttons here, Spencer. Soopermouse has a bit of a history of being, if not a troll, then a complete bully about what she thinks everyone else should think/do.
That said, I do have an issue with the medical records being divulged. McCain was pretty horrifically treated and tortured for five years of his life. That will cost you big life points, and probably contribute to a reduced lifespan.
That is why I’m a little nervous about spelunking in medical records. It is a fair bet that what might be found in McCain’s records would stem from his treatment as a POW. Essentially, this approach could be used to defacto disqualify survivors of extreme privation and torture for “medical” reasons. That would preclude the Nelson Mandelas of the world from eventually holding office. That isn’t a precedent I’d like to see set.
Look, you don’t need to attack McCain’s judgment on grounds of “chemo brain” — as previous posts here have made abundantly clear, he’s got bad enough judgment already to be plenty concerning for everyone.
Other than that, yeah. Concern troll. “Old people with cancer die more frequently than younger people without cancer” is not a controversial statement. The question is whether likelihood to die in office is a reasonable criterion for choosing the POTUS, individual emotional responses to cancer aside.
I’m a five year post-treatment cancer survivor and I’m considered cured. I imagine, he’s in a similar situation.
With almost any other cancer he would be. But melanoma has a nasty way of recurring up to 20 years after the primary melanoma occurs. So, unfortunately, it may still be relevant. Assuming he hasn’t had any recurrences since 2000 (which we don’t know, since he hasn’t released his records), his chances are relatively good, but I also hope that he picks a VP based on who he thinks would be good at running the country if he dies, not on who he thinks will help him get elected. But I would say that even if he were a perfectly healthy 35 year old: being president is a dangerous job.
Other than that, yeah. Concern troll. “Old people with cancer die more frequently than younger people without cancer” is not a controversial statement.
Having worked extensively with orthopedic oncology records, it isn’t a terribly accurate statement either.
That’s because many neoplasms are age specific and NOT older-age specific. Osteosarcoma is a disease of some kids, lots of teens, and a few older people (often secondary to radiation treatment).
Chondrosarcoma is largely a disease of mid-life. The few elders with latent benign lesions which ultimately undergo sarcomatous transformations are generally low-grade cases and have a much higher survival rate than the mid-life emergent cases.
Summary statement: age-related mortality of patients living with cancer is strongly dependent on the type of primary neoplasm.
While I think that we can all admit that there’s a risk that any person in this world can go into quickly declining health over the next four years, it’s also pretty damned obvious that an older person, in general, tends to have a higher risk of going into quickly declining health than a younger person. And, and older person who has already had various health concerns, probably even at higher risk than a person of the same age who has not.
My grandpa, who had access to all the health care that money could buy and very good long-term health (and, very good “genetic” health as well–parents who lived long lives with few medical problems) went from an intelligent, energetic man to a man who nobody would want holding any political office in less than 4 years during his 70s (recently). It wasn’t even just 1 issue, but a collection of sudden-onset health issues that tore him apart both mentally and physically.
I say we call “shenanigans” or ‘bunnies” on poopermoose.
Anybody that cannot tell the difference in importance between the age/health of a presidential candidate and the sex/color of a presidential candidate, well…. just too stupid to vote.
IMHO.
(Disclaimer: I’m another Stage II breast cancer survivor, and I went through chemo and the whole bit)
Seconding calling “bunnies” on Soopermouse. This is not the first time s/he has concern-trolled hir little heart out in a Pandagon thread.
And, might I add, I find the “chemo-brain” comment incredibly offensive. I’ve had chemo brain. It never caused me to do anything particularly destructive other than miss a few appointments. Mostly chemo-brain makes you want to sleep, or watch DVD’s; stuff a President oughtn’t to be doing all day, but certainly not NUKES! BOOGA-BOOGA!
Hopefully skirting ableism, being President of the United States is a bit different than being President of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, Inc. or even a state governor or House representative. Health matters, if nothing else because a President who dies in office is succeeded by his/her VP. It matters to me if a candidate’s health is shaky; statistically, a cancer survivor in his 70’s is more likely to die than someone who has never had cancer and is in his 40’s.
Finally, yes, why was Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer such an issue whereas John McCain’s is not? Mrs. Edwards wasn’t even running for POTUS - her husband was. *eyeroll*
Re chemo brain: Second ailurophile’s comments. However, chemo doesn’t do crap in melanoma so McCain wouldn’t be on it anyway. At least, not if the issue were recurrent melanoma. And not as the first choice of treatment. What he might be put on is interferon or interleukin-2. Unfortunately, these drugs (cytokines) tend to make people depressed. Maybe not the best thing in the world for the head of state of the US.
That all aside, it’s quite probable that he’d make it through 4, possibly 8 years without real difficulty. The melanoma probably won’t recur and he’s otherwise healthy. Early 70s isn’t that old anymore. I wouldn’t not vote for him because of his health. I wouldn’t vote for him because of his policies and I would certainly urge him (if he asked me) to pick his VP with care, but I haven’t yet seen any health issues that make his candidacy unreasonable.
Um, soopermouse:
I think you mean “hyena.”
The thing about melanomas is that they are very sneaky about metastasizing. My aunt died last year from liver cancer that probably metastasized from a melanoma she had had excised 10 years before, and now my uncle has a huge mass in his lung and spinal cancer 5 years after his melanoma surgery. The lung stuff especially can go very very fast - my uncle had an X-ray in August that was clear, but when he went in last month for another, they found a mass.
I think in McCain’s case, since he’s a vet and a Senator and has a past history of melanoma, that his situation is being tracked very closely, and I would expect that he had a very thorough checkup before he entered the race. If I were voting Republican in the fall, I would want the medical records released with sufficient time to be able to formulate a backup plan in case McCain’s health tanks before the election (due to the melanoma history), but I would worry more about his known eccentricities than his age.
BTW, does anyone remember how long after the election Dukakis started having health problems?
To actually develop a melanoma at all from solar over-exposures …sun damage… forcefully implies that the entire involved genomic is or has been weakened.
To have multiple recurrences goes to to a substantially
impaired immune system beyond that simply dermatological.
[This is fairly new information on this particular malignancy.]
So this should have legs.
I guess especially to the choice for VP?
If these implications bear out one really must have (demand) disclosure.
Health is absolutely a valid issue. The job of President isn’t just any job, you can’t negotiate flex time or get a colleague to fill in for you at short notice. It is absolutely one of the most stressful, sleep-deprived, and draining jobs that there is. Just a ridiculous amount of responsibility and strain. I’m young and in perfect health, and I know I’d crack in a week.
Look at before and after pictures of Presidents. Clinton and W. both aged far more than 8 years during their time in office.
It’s hard enough to deal with the job when you’re young and vital. The prospect of health issues like heart problems and cancer - which require time and energy to deal with - are a serious concern for anyone who wants this all-consuming job.