logo
ENFRع
#

Latest news with #BidenHealth

Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too
Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too

Washington Post

time6 days ago

  • Health
  • Washington Post

Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too

The argument in the July 11 editorial, 'Why Congress should investigate Biden's health,' that Congress should investigate Joe Biden's health while he served as president, would have been far stronger if the board had also argued for looking into President Donald Trump's health. Investigating Biden's situation after the fact might help support arguments for greater transparency and awareness. But politicizing the move by focusing on one party dooms the effort at this point. Furthermore, demonstrating a clear, current focus on fitness for service strengthens the argument for investigating Biden's health now. And need I mention, investigating Trump's health would highlight any risks the nation faces now — not just hypothetically, were Biden to have won the 2024 election. Examining what health-related assessments are the norm in high-level executive positions in both private- and public-sector organizations would also offer insights into how Congress should handle these cases. Tom Martella, Washington The July 11 editorial on the congressional investigation into former president Joe Biden's health during his administration cited a number of concerns. Those included forgetting names of top aides, use of teleprompters and tiredness, which imply that Biden might have been unable to fully exercise the duties of the presidency. The editorial also pushed for Kevin O'Connor, Biden's onetime doctor, to be more forthcoming about his patient's health despite confidentiality laws that apply to health records. To expect an unbiased and nonpolitical investigation into this matter as the editorial would want is ludicrous, given the political environment of Congress. Though such an investigation could be useful, it could only provide meaningful information if conducted by an independent team of experts and if not politically motivated. Congress could authorize such a review. Congress's job is to investigate and react to what is going on in the country by proposing laws. What laws would be proposed after an investigation into Biden's health? Limit the age at which a candidate could run for president? Such an action would probably require a constitutional amendment and take years to enact. Though Biden might have exhibited some of the symptoms of age, whether they affected his ability to function as president is doubtful, as he achieved many positive things for the country during his term. With so much at stake in the country these days, Congress should spend its time on much more pressing issues. Jared Wermiel, Silver Spring Sadly, the 'unflinching investigation into Biden's fitness' that the July 11 editorial advocated would probably never happen in today's Congress. Extreme polarization has made it impossible. Democrats do not have faith in Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), chairman of the Oversight Committee, to conduct a proper investigation. Nor should they, given that Comer's impeachment investigation of President Joe Biden was unbecoming of Congress. Even Comer's witness, conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley, testified there was not enough evidence for impeachment. So, unlike the Editorial Board, I am not the least bit disappointed that former White House physician Kevin O'Connor is refusing to testify. But I do agree fully with the Editorial Board that Americans deserve an unflinching investigation into Biden's health. I am a Democrat of 45 years, and I am extremely disappointed in what has occurred with what seems to me to be a cover-up into the serious matter of a president's health. Democrats' claim that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy was undermined when they appeared to hide from American voters the condition of their 2024 presidential candidate. Attempting to conceal the true condition of their candidate would be a threat to democracy. Bruce Kirby, Rockville Does it really matter whether Congress investigates former president Joe Biden's health in office, as the July 11 editorial charged? He's retired. Leave him alone. Here's a better idea: Investigate the health of our current president. He's the only one who should really matter to Congress. During Donald Trump's first term, dozens of psychiatrists and mental health experts collaborated on a book alerting the American public to the potential danger he posed. Clues to Trump's mental state have been plainly observable for many years. So have at it, lawmakers. But, if they determine that Trump suffers from a health issue that makes him unfit for office, they must act for the nation's good and not for political advantage. Paul Mazich, Yorktown, Virginia The writer is a retired commander in the U.S. Navy. Regarding the July 19 editorial, 'The opioid settlement can help save lives': Naloxone, or Narcan, is a lifesaving tool, and expanding its accessibility should absolutely be a key target of opioid settlement fund spending. But it is not the only strategy worthy of investment. The settlement agreement allows for the funds to be used for opioid use disorder and other substance use disorders, recognizing the high rates of poly-substance use and that substance-specific strategies are often ineffective (particularly for prevention). These funds provide an unprecedented opportunity to address our nation's addiction crisis. Let's encourage states to spend them on the things that we know work not only to reduce opioid overdoses but also to end the recurring cycles of addiction and drug epidemics. Spending all settlement funds on increasing access to naloxone will not prevent the emergence of the next drug epidemic. This can only be done by investing the settlement funds in effective prevention strategies that promote resilience and emotional well-being among youths, targeting the root causes of substance use and an array of other negative health and social outcomes. Though naloxone is a powerful tool for preventing overdose, it will not prevent drug use, nor is it a treatment for addiction. It only reverses opioid overdoses; it does not reduce deaths from other major contributors to preventable deaths in the United States: alcohol and tobacco. Treatment, particularly Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder, is also a critical tool for reducing overdoses. The suggestion that treatment only works for people willing to seek it out ignores the reality that treatment is widely unavailable and often unaffordable. Expanding access to effective treatment must also be a key focus of the settlement fund spending. States should absolutely use the settlement funds to prevent opioid overdoses and save lives. The danger is in suggesting that there is one solution to this multifaceted crisis. Lindsey Vuolo, New York Linda Richter, Scarsdale, New York Lindsey Vuolo is vice president of health law and policy at the Partnership to End Addiction. Linda Richter is senior vice president of prevention research and analysis. In 2013, we worked on the development of the White House drug strategy, which recommended broader access to naloxone and also recognized the need for an expanded system of care for people with substance use disorder. We are encouraged by The Post's July 19 editorial that called attention to the persistent issue of overdose deaths facing the United States. We also appreciated the Editorial Board's desire to see opioid settlement dollars spent on evidence-based interventions that will reduce overdose deaths. We heartily agree and have dedicated our careers to advancing these interventions. However, though we agree that naloxone and overdose prevention efforts are key elements of a state or local community's response to overdose deaths, naloxone cannot be the primary or sole response simply because this investment alone will not yield the greatest possible impact. Methadone and buprenorphine are the most evidence-based treatment medications for opioid use disorder, and they can have the biggest impact on mortality. That's because these medications provide long-term overdose prevention, decreasing mortality by nearly 50 percent; they support sustained recovery and improved outcomes for individuals, as well as stability for families and communities; and naloxone is estimated to have only a 3.6 percent mortality prevention effect. Treatment medications dramatically lessen illicit opioid use, thereby driving down the risk of overdose (and the demand for illicit opioids such as fentanyl). As the editorial states, long-term efforts are needed, but we must also look to the evidence to drive effective strategies that improve lives and prevent deaths. Regina LaBelle, Takoma Park Caleb Banta-Green, Seattle Regina LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Biden administration and also served at ONDCP in the Obama administration. Caleb Banta-Green was a senior science adviser at the White House ONDCP during the Obama administration. Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.

Washington Post declares Americans deserve thorough investigation into Biden's health, possible cover-up
Washington Post declares Americans deserve thorough investigation into Biden's health, possible cover-up

Fox News

time11-07-2025

  • Health
  • Fox News

Washington Post declares Americans deserve thorough investigation into Biden's health, possible cover-up

The Washington Post editorial board declared Thursday that Americans "deserve" to know the state of former President Joe Biden's health while in office. The board noted Biden's personal physician, Kevin O'Connor, refused to disclose Biden's health information in a House Oversight Committee hearing this week and said that members of Congress need to make sure they get to the bottom of the situation. "Congress should thoroughly investigate whether Biden was physically and mentally capable of carrying out his duties — and not just to sate understandable public curiosity about the previous administration," the board declared, adding, "O'Connor could probably reveal more than anyone else about how White House officials seek to control the public's perception of a president's fitness." During the congressional hearing this week, O'Connor pleaded the Fifth Amendment multiple times regarding his tenure with the former president. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating whether Biden's former top aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline while in office, which they have denied. The Post noted how Republicans responded to the physician's tactic as evidence that he was engaged in a cover-up, while Democrats dismissed the hearing and called concerns about Biden's health overblown. The board said both sides are "getting this wrong." The editorial continued, "Biden's case is only the latest evidence that lawmakers should take on the difficult but unavoidable topic of whether to set transparency rules on presidential health. This means Democrats cannot deny that the Biden health story is important. It also means the Republicans running the probe should be more interested in getting relevant information than in embarrassing Democrats." The Post argued that reports of Biden forgetting the names of his top aides, using a teleprompter for "minor events," needing cabinet meetings scripted, and not being able to work the long hours of the job all "raise legitimate concerns that Biden's health threatened national security and continuity of government." "Lawmakers have a responsibility to carefully examine the matter and use their findings to consider reforms that would preserve Americans' confidence in their leaders," it argued. The board acknowledged that Biden's doctor was in a complex situation during the hearing because he has "ethical and legal obligations to protect private patient information" and had concerns that the "Justice Department could use his testimony against him." However, it said that he could provide testimony about whether "he ever felt pressure to sanitize his annual public reports on Biden's health." Representatives for the former president did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

'HE WAS A DANGER TO OTHERS' Dr. Nicole Saphier Weighs in on Biden Doctor Pleading the Fifth
'HE WAS A DANGER TO OTHERS' Dr. Nicole Saphier Weighs in on Biden Doctor Pleading the Fifth

Fox News

time10-07-2025

  • Health
  • Fox News

'HE WAS A DANGER TO OTHERS' Dr. Nicole Saphier Weighs in on Biden Doctor Pleading the Fifth

Dr. Nicole Saphier, Board Certified Medical Doctor, Senior Fox News Medical Contributor & bestselling author, joined the Guy Benson Show today with guest host Harry Hurley to discuss a bevy of medical issues. Dr. Saphier discussed Biden doctor Kevin O'Connor's choice to plead the fifth when asked about what he knew about Biden's health. Dr. Saphier also weighed in on RFK Jr.'s efforts as HHS secretary and the resistance to removing food dyes from foods by MARS and other companies. Listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store