Should candidates for public office disclose their mental health history?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 12, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(38 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government
Former Sen. Mark Dayton, now running for governor, made news last month when he talked about his depression and a relapse in his recovery from alcoholism. Today's Question: Should candidates for public office disclose their mental health history?
Comments texted to MPR:
Of course candidates shouldn't be made to disclose their mental health history. In a truly free country candidates shouldn't be made to disclose their mental health history. -Shaun, Moorhead, MN
Yes they must have an exam to make sure one has the right brain for public office. -Oliver Mupila, Zambia
A disclosure law would discourage politicians from seeking help for problems. Is that what we want? -Chris, Edina, MN
I believe that anyone seeking public office should present his/her mental health records before they are qualify to run. -Robert, Big Lake, MN
Comments (38)
If that disclosure consists of, say, a history of violence and/or criminality, then I'd say yes.
As it is, I think most of our politicians and corporate leaders already suffer from at least one major mental disorder: narcissism. And occasionally another: greed. Except, in predatory capitalism, these nasty traits are celebrated and encouraged rather than pathologized.
As Joel Bakan wrote in _The Corporation_, if a corporation was actually an individual (it's not, really, but is treated like one under the law), it would be an anti-social psychopath. The federal government is simply an enabler, feeding the monster, adopting techniques it picks up from corporate pathology.
When I heard the comment about "shudder to think of all the undiagnosed mental disease" made during morning edition I was really angry. The negative stigma the mentally ill have in America is hurtful and discriminatory. Imgaine changing the words to "I shudder think of all the unkown n****** that serve our nation." No one would say that - it's sick and discriminatory. No one would replace the words "mental Illness" with a physical illness, like diabetes or heart disease - people don't "shudder" at those. Yet it's okay for MPR to quote someone "shuddering" at mental illness??? As a productive and active person in our community who has a disabling mental illness, I shudder to hear about how deeply engrained America's prejudice and discrimination against those with mental illnes is. And I am apalled that MPR would use the discriminatory quote as a humorous end to an otherwise decent story.
Much like other illnesses, this isn't a yes or no question. Some things should be disclosed, others not. Having been treated for cancer 20 years ago may not be relevant where undergoing current treatment as a chronic life threatening condition may be relevant. We want to be able to trust our elected officials to be fit enough for the job and be able to complete their term. Where to draw this line differs with each circumstance.
In this context, addiction is a tough issue. It is an illness with a behavioral component. Also, a relapse of this disease can greatly affect a person’s abilities and judgment. I greatly respect people with years of sobriety as they have overcome huge obstacles and have valuable life experiences to offer. However, I feel less trusting of someone else who has recently relapsed. Even then, there are degrees of relapse and much depends on how it was handled. However, when someone has relapsed while in public office, I think that opens the door to making it a public issue which should be disclosed.
People who chose some professions, like politics, should expect to give up some, not all, of their privacy. Where to draw that line is an ongoing question depending on the type of job, the issues of the day, and the ever changing societal norms. Many things we considered private, and acceptable, years ago are no longer in either category.
The right of privacy ...where do we go next?
The right of privacy is on a narrow ridge here and needs to be so protected. The sequential domino effect of losing one precious human right... maybe it's a good time to ask oneself ...and then where next?
However also consider, whether it be myth or truth, if George W. Bush as a kid blew up frogs to entertain his mother... and the public had requested he be tested at the time of his creeping candidacy way back when; if violence was an excessive force in the mental state of George W....what would be the outcome?
Probably nothing would have changed because the empirical, paternalistic, winner/loser addiction is excessively; historically embedded in the psyche of average Joe Blow American.
Call it bi-polar-bullyism?
There is a distinction between a person being depressed and getting treatment and those who have been diagnosed with a mentally illness. Depression can be a temporary, situational state of mind, a biological tendency, or a debilitating lifelong illness. No one with a diagnosed Mental Illness would not be running for public office and it would be immediately evident to any observer that the individual is ill. Depression generally is not a "mental illness". The idea that because Mark Dayton is or was depressed would cause him to be unable to serve as governor is absurd. Many, many people feel depressed and get help for it. It's great that Mark had the courage to seek and get treatment. Being a parent, a student, a kid growing up in America or a politician can lead to being depressed. This does not mean you are mentally ill. Thank you Mark, for help educate the public about depression. It is not necessary for anyone to disclose their personal mental life with the general public. Those who have had some therapy for their depression are much more able to govern than those who deny a need for help. Perhaps all politicians running for office should be required to have a course of personal therapy.
Jan Search, Private practice psychotherapist
I become very uncomfortable when your guests say that candidates should expect questions about treatment they've received for mental illness, drug abuse, and so forth, but not questions about alcohol intake or other non-clinical vices.
Doesn't this encourage a would-be politician to avoid treatment and leave their addictions, illnesses, etc. undiagnosed? Why would we want to do this?
I'm not convinced clinical depression is a disqualification for elected office. It's well documented that one of the greatest risk factors for depression is high intelligence.
Some of our nation's best leaders have struggled with depression. I believe that people who experience depression often emerge from the illness with greater amounts of compassion and empathy for the people around them. But I'm not sure the general voter would recognize this fact--the politician would need to make this point. Requiring politicians to disclose their mental health history could cut out leaders with some of the personality traits we most need.
No. Since all politicians are insane anyway. To reveal their mental condition would be to state the obvious. Just look at Congress, the State House and the Governor. Applies to BOTH parties.
As long as mental illness remains stigmatized in our culture, and as long as anything politicians say can and will be twisted out of context and used against them, and as long as voters continue to be persuaded by emotional, divisive rhetoric rather than facts and reason, it should not surprise us that politicians will try to hide such things. Personally, I have a lot more respect for folks who admit they have struggles in life and are open about how they are dealing with them, than those who are in denial about their troubles. It shows real character and maturity. Mark Dayton's admission makes me more likely to vote for him.
Candidate disclosures are required, or expected, because of how this personal information makes us feel about voting for them. Just as with other health issues, a person's behavioral health has a unique influence medically on each aspect of their daily life, including one's work life. But the truth is behavioral health matters remain highly stigmatized in our culture. Until a day comes when organic diseases which affect brain function, such as depression, are accepted as part of the human condition alongside the other organic diseases we deal with in the course of life, those who publicize it can expect to experience prejudice and discrimination.
Only if they wish to. I certainly wouldn't want to be compelled to tell a prospective employer of my physical or mental health history.
Brian F.
If someone is likely to have or had a stroke (CVA) while driving a motor vehicle that person is disallowed from getting a drivers license.
Therefore, if a leader is mentally diminished and is steering this great ship we call the USA ... I vote for a non-mentally impaired person.
DTOM
There's a huge stigma about mental illness in our country, and I'm glad Dayton chose to share about his struggle, as it helps to lessen the stigma. However, this should be a personal choice, and it's not the public's right to know unless the candidate chooses so. Just because a person has a mental illness doens't mean they can't effectively do their job-- ask the millions of people out there with mental illness.
James writes: "If they are preoccupied or distracted in mental anguish they are ineffective in their duties."
This assumes that a person with a mental illness can't perform their job because of the illness.
This is basically like saying we should also disallow diabetics from public office, because they're just going to be preoccupied with their blood sugar and insulin, and won't be effective either.
People with mental illness perform all kinds of tasks in every sector of the economy. And yes, there may be times when that illness impacts their performance, but a senator with a brain tumor or a heart attack is just as ineffective *while the medical issue is happening*.
It's comments like these that illustrate how far we have yet to go in treating mental illness as an illness and not a character defect.
Yes, if only to humanize the individuals that are supposed to represent their fellow citizens.
It's a medical issue. The candidates have every right to keep this information to themselves.
Personally, if I were in their position, I would only reveal this information about myself after elected, and use it as a lightning rod of advocacy. Unfortunately though, people often vote on fears, and mental illness does count against people politically. If, for example, President Obama came out as having Bipolar disorder, he would become a beacon for the mentally ill, and he would be very much revered in our community. However it would likely be political suicide (not meaning to make light here).
This question somehow implies that mental illness 'special' and isn't covered by the existing laws protecting medical and/or physical illness information.
Candidates need not disclose mental health information unless it resulted in some legal incapacity. Public policy should encourage treatment, rather than denial. (Similarly, other aspects of medical history should also not be disclosed, even when they might limit life expectancy. The interest in promoting treatment outweighs other concerns. If the number one criterion was really longevity, we would be electing young women!)
Yes.
Leaders need to making something extraordinary happen. If they are preoccupied or distracted in mental anguish they are ineffective in their duties.
DTOM
Well, given the supportive, balanced and rational environment in which we currently practice politics ;-) , wouldn't the decision to enter into it be enough of an indicator of an individuals mental state?
Absolutely not. Medical information is private and none of our business. If candidates have been successful enough to reach the point of running for office while dealing with mental health issues, there's no reason to believe these issues will cause problems during their next job.
Since taxpayer funds pay the salaries of politicians, yes, we can "request" medical history. But as a famous country singer said "Normal and Regular are settings on a Washing Machine".
Who defines mental well-being in a (literally) Bipolar political environment, when two different Americans, armed with 1 vote each, might, for any of many different reasons, define their political leaders / role models as:
Former Governors: Sarah Palin, George W Bush or Bill Clinton (Have Democratic Governors generally been discouraged from running for president?)
Former Senators: Fred Thompson/John McCain or Barack Obama?
OR, if they are disgusted with the political process & its results, they might choose to support well-funded media voices they agree with (Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and now Palin) and simply fall in lock-step with the candidates they endorse and promote.
The Political Landscape and Process we knew at the national level has morphed, and it is going to continue to do so, as the economy morphs America.
Despite numerical majority, the opposition party remains the Democratic Party - it has no real, unifying voice, as it tries to figure out how to maintain control of campaign funding, while the GOP re-loads, fortified by the upcoming Democrats' retirements.
Since well-funded political parties and their lobbyists have an interest in keeping medical records secret,
one would have to ask how important this issue is and the prioritization needed to fight this uphill battle.
As one of many examples, one might ask how and why the media protected John Edwards' second, separate and private life with a mistress, while he was on the campaign trail, competing for votes with Hillary Clinton and others...
The media is a powerful business--even when challenged by Twitter and other new inventions, it endures--needed by big business to entertain the masses and always keep a positive spin on things--
even while reporting the bad news-
just to keep things 'Fair and Balanced'
*g*
I think all medical issues are private. Disclosure should be done carefully because of the ability for all news to be distorted, exaggerated or biased. As for the mentally unstable politicians, they don't think there is anything wrong with them. They don't have to disclose anything...it is already apparent in their actions.
As someone in the corporate world with a history of major depression, I'm not sure that I want to be singled out unless my condition impacts my ability to do my job. Why should someone with a diagnosed mental illness be singled out - why not make public candidates also disclose their weight, cholesterol, any major surgeries, blood sugar level, etc then? Having a condition that is treatable and under control shouldn't need to be disclosed to anyone as long as it doesn't impact the capability to perform the job. Why is mental illness an exception?
If we believe that mental illness is truly a medical condition in the same category as diabetes, why would a candidate need to disclose this information? I think that as long as a candidate is treating their condition with regular medical follow up that they shouldn't disclose their medical history. In spite of what I've just said - I wouldn't want a paranoid schizophrenic or someone in a manic stage of bipolar disorder off their meds making political decisions.
Over half of Americans experience a diagnosable mental illness during their lifetime. Almost all these illnesses are treatable. The vast majority of those effected will continue to lead productive lives. Political leaders with mental illness include Lincoln and Churchill, who both suffered depression. Few would argue that they also provided outstanding leadership. Changing current misperceptions will take courageous leaders willing to challenge the unwarrented stigma of mental illness by their personal examples.
I think it should be an individual's choice to disclose any health information. That said I wish more politicians would publicly talk about their mental health issues. I think it would help to erase the stigma of mental illness if the public were more exposed to it. The more people who see that a mental illness does not keep a person from being a contributing member of society the better!
I work as an advocate for adults with mental illness and chemical dependency here in the Minneapolis Metro. Why do we continue to stigmatize diseases that are recognized by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association? Mental illness and chemical dependency touch us all, through our own lives, our families, and our friends and coworkers. Certainly, we the public want to know that our serving politicians are receiving appropriate treatment for their mental illness and chemical dependency, but how can we expect them to seek that treatment if we run scared upon hearing of their struggles. The fear is of our own humanity, what we perceive as our flaws. Yet, in reality, it is often our "flaws" and our struggles that inform us, that help us to make the best decisions possible. Why do we expect our politicians to be free of those struggles?
Yes. Especially those who've been avoiding getting the help they need, lest it hurt their political careers.
If we want to keep the crazies like Michelle Bachmann out, maybe we should have mandatory psychiatric evaluations for anyone interested in running for office. And if mental health is important, then so is physical health. So we should also have a maximum BMI requirement (but not a minimum, because only fat people are unhealthy and the BMI is an accurate proxy for a person's health), as well as genetic screening and family medical histories taken for prospective candidates, to weed out those who might develop any conceivable medical condition. I mean, look what happened to Ted Kennedy! Advanced medical screening could have kept him out of office, which would have been good because he died in office, which is bad. And as long as we're at it, let's make sure our elected officials don't engage in risky behavior like BASE jumping, unprotected sex with Argentenian firecrackers, being struck by lightning, flying in airplanes, and driving cars.
No, the question can not be asked of an applicant for any job by any employer.
Candidates should disclose mental health history? Of course not, no more than their medical history. And what about all those candidates who need mental health care that never seek it? This disclosure expectation would put those who are aware enough to seek help at a disadvantage given the stigma associated with mental health difficulties. What an absurd expectation. One more reason why good prospects avoid becoming candidates.
Absolutely not. There is a major lack of understanding about many mental illnesses, and by forcing candidates to reveal them, they will face needless and undeserved prejudice.
No, they should not be single out mental illness. Mental illnesses should be treated as any other illnesses. The Strib should ask about overall health, not just mental health. To do otherwise is to add to the stigma and resulting discrimination that surrounds mental illnesses.
We should know the mental state of the people we're electing. It would be nice to weed out the Michelle Bachmans and other crazy people who believe our planet is 6,000 years old. Insanity in Government has become the norm (or the Norm Coleman).
When making decisions that effect millions of people candidates we should know their mental health history, medical history, driving history, tattoos/piercings and favorite sports teams. Because would we want a Yankees Fan as governor?!?
I shutter to think of all the undiagnosed mental disease that already serves our great nation. Don't you have to be a little crazy to run for office anyway?
| January 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock