Politics of the Gaze: Medical Exams of Public Officials

An article I ran across the other day looked at the possibility that Carol Moseley Braun's and other women candidates' medical records would be available for public scrutiny.

The tone was light, and Braun was jocular about the whole thing, but it set off some bells in my head. Inasmuch as some health concerns are gender specific, how do we objectively and fairly compare the physical health of candidates and office holders? And that question leads to others about the politicization of attributes of the body and its health. Is it possible to define physical fitness for office in a way that doesn't disqualify or unfairly disadvantage people who have all the qualifications that we agree are truly vital?

Personally, I find the topic of candidate X's health to be almost always irrelevant, unduly invasive, and disgusting. Some things just aren't worth knowing about.

What if a female candidate had exercised her legal right to a legal abortion in the past. If a candidate's medical history is divulged then that information would be included. I don't think we need to know details of a candidate's past only a doctor's go/no go on their health. Oh that's right, we have no right to privacy anymore, so never mind.

And it's only the tip of the iceberg. Could this be a barrier to entry for women in politics? What of the elderly? Gays? How many health conditions are stigmatized, and how do those stigmata align with other markers of difference?

Carol's joke about prostate cancer masks an uncanny sense of being other. Prostate cancer has been tested in the poltical waters, and is not a disqualifier. But there is the taint of weakness, at least in some corners of the media. How would a woman's health be treated in a national campaign?

Would you want to be the first woman to post her medical history on whitehouse.gov?

Dang.