This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Washington • Rumors swirled constantly during last year's presidential race about Hillary Clinton's health, especially after she stumbled at a Sept. 11 remembrance event and her campaign belatedly acknowledged that the Democratic nominee had pneumonia.
Then-candidate Donald Trump's initial note about his health from his personal doctor flummoxed observers, leaving more questions than answers.
The health of the two major-party nominees — Clinton was 69 years old, Trump 70 – played a part in last year's presidential campaign, in part because both sides were spinning their candidate's physical fitness to take on the job as the leader of the free world.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz is considering attempting to remove the spin.
The Utah Republican is weighing legislation to require the major-party presidential candidates to undergo a physical by a Navy physician and for those evaluations to be released to the public.
"If you're going to empower someone with the nuclear codes, I think we should understand how healthy or unhealthy they might be," says Chaffetz, whose legislation would only affect candidates and not the incumbent commander in chief unless he runs for re-election.
American history is replete with questions about the health of those seeking the White House, and those occupying it.
Journalists, for the most part, chose not to report about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's use of a wheelchair. President Woodrow Wilson had secret surgery during World War I after suffering breathing problems, and had reportedly had strokes before taking office and during his tenure. President John F. Kennedy hid the fact he was taking steroids for his unreported Addison's disease.
Grover Cleveland, when he was in the White House, underwent surgery for a cancer in his jaw – but did so in a boat offshore to keep it concealed from the public, according to Allan Lichtman, an American political historian who teaches at American University.
In fact, the release of medical records by presidential candidates is more of a modern move than traditional.
Sen. Paul Tsgongas of Massachusetts was one of the first in the modern era to offer up his doctors during his 1992 campaign for the Democratic nod to argue he was cancer-free since a bone-marrow transplant six years prior. (Tsgongas died in 1995, before he would have finished his first term had be been elected.) Sen. Bob Dole, who at 73 years of age was one of the oldest seeking the White House, released parts of his medical history to show he was up for the job in his 1996 campaign.
President Ronald Reagan's was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease six years after leaving office, though one of his sons, Ron, later said he saw early signs of the disease while his father was in the White House. Reagan's White House physicians, though, say they never saw evidence of the disease while he was president.
There's never been a legal requirement for candidates to publicly disclose their health records even as some, like Clinton and Trump, selectively release information to assuage voters.
"It's been highly routine since the turn of the 21st century but it's been very variable in terms of what exactly they're going to release," says Lichtman.
Requiring such a move, as Chaffetz is considering asking Congress to do, could offer the first independent evaluation for the public to see in regards to a candidate's ability to perform the job, similar to how reporters now pore over a White House hopeful's political record and business interests.
But releasing someone's medical records could also provide more fodder for opposition campaigns. For example, does a one-time cancer scare or a family history of Alzheimer's mean a candidate is unfit?
The argument against legally requiring public health disclosures "is whether the public is really in a position to evaluate this. And could this be exploited?" says Lichtman.
Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he first thought of requiring a medical physical of presidential contenders when he saw the reports concerning Clinton's health last year. He says the possible legislation has nothing to do with Trump, who released little about his health during the campaign and didn't disclose some medicines he takes.
The idea, Chaffetz says, would be to require a physical performed by a Navy physician within two months of filing to run for the office of president. It would apply to both major political parties.
The 2012 Republican nominee "Mitt Romney looks pretty fit to me," Chaffetz added, "but it would be even better if some Navy doctor came out and said here's an unbiased assessment of their health and what sort of medicine they're taking. That's fair to know."
While Chaffetz's bill would look to be bipartisan, it may not gain any traction in a Congress that is looking at rolling back regulations and laws, not adding more requirements.
"No Congress would ever pass that. That's dead on arrival," says Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution and a longtime congressional and presidential scholar.
Hess says candidates have felt public pressure to release information about their health during campaigns and journalists aren't going to shy from asking about a candidate's well-being.
Congress could, he added, require a candidate to release tax forms because they're government records but demanding a Navy physical would probably be a step too far. (Release of tax returns has become a tradition for presidential hopefuls but there's nothing in law to require it — as demonstrated by Trump's refusal to do so.)
"With medical things, you're not going to be able to force a candidate or anyone else to produce their medical records," Hess says. "It's so totally personal."