Aging Experts Really Don’t Want to Talk About the Election

Every day my inbox is filled with opinions on everything from fecal transplants to climate change. When medical news breaks, someone inevitably sends me an email suggesting an article.

Except for one topic: the health of the main presidential candidates. Almost no one wants to touch him.

This first became clear to me last year, shortly after I began working as editor of First Opinion magazine. Even in the spring and summer of 2023, the debate questioned whether President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump were too old to occupy the White House for another term. Around the same time, Sen. Mitch McConnell froze during a speech, and then-Sen. Dianne Feinstein died after years of doubting her ability to carry out her duties.

I thought STAT readers would be interested in hearing from an expert on health and aging, so I reached out to probably dozens of gerontologists and geriatricians. (It took me longer than it should have to realize the difference between these specialties: gerontologists study aging, geriatricians treat older patients.)

I started with those who wrote the previous first opinions, but they all objected or simply did not respond. When someone refused, I asked them to recommend someone else who could or would write. I then progressed through the gerontology department at the university until I reached four or five degrees from the original person I approached.

Many of those who declined said they were too busy. But others were outspoken: They simply didn’t want to—or weren’t allowed to—have a say on such a controversial issue. Sure, there are plenty of people offering opinions and even diagnoses on cable TV and the Internet, but these are generally not the experts STAT readers want or deserve to hear.

Eventually I found an author who was willing to write. anything: Anna Chodos, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and a practicing geriatrician. Quite reasonably, she did not want to directly comment on the health status of Biden or Trump. Instead she wrote thoughtful article arguing that age limits for politicians are a terrible idea. “Aging is a heterogeneous, unpredictable process, tempered by old-fashioned life advantages and luck,” she wrote.

But as an opinion editor, I still wanted to find someone who could make a compelling argument: the candidates are too old! They weren’t too old! Trump was clearly getting older, but Biden was fine! Biden was clearly getting old, but Trump was fine! Everyone worries about the wrong sides of aging!

Since then I have tried again and again, most recently this month.

Fortunately, First Opinion published several more articles on the candidates’ health, most notably by Lawrence K. Altman, a physician and reporter who has covered the topic since the 1970s for the New York Times. In February he wrote measured essayfilled with anecdotes from his previous reporting, arguing that candidates should share more information. Like Chodos, he urged people not to be stereotyped: “Research has shown that 17% of Americans aged 75 to 84 and 32% of those 85 and older have dementia. But that means more than two-thirds do. No I have dementia.”

He was more forceful in July, arguing that Biden needed to release the recordings. full medical examination. And this week he made an important point: Since Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump began insulting each other’s cognitive health, they’ve lost sight of suffering millions of Americans with mental illness.

Last week, STAT also published an article by ethicist George J. Annas that makes a surprising argument: The president and the candidates deserve doctor-patient confidentiality. He notes that the public needs the president to be able to freely discuss awkward situations with his doctor, rather than hide them. (He says the president has an ethical responsibility to share any conditions that might prevent them from carrying out their duties.)

But none of these essays, no matter how informative, completely eliminated me. It’s always difficult to find experts trained to appreciate nuance and write 30-page scientific papers who are willing to make arguments that fit into a Google-friendly title. But I have found that this is, without a doubt, the most difficult topic to write about in my nearly 20 years in the field of opinion journalism.

Question: Why?

The reasons that the experts gave me seem to fall into three groups.

First, it is too difficult to judge from afar whether someone has Parkinson’s disease, cognitive decline, or a mental illness. Fair.

Secondly, they don’t want to anger their colleagues. They fear that simplistic arguments will cause colleagues to look down on them, possibly damaging their professional reputation. Also fair. The stigma of interacting with a popular audience is real, although fading. Institutions are increasingly encouraging this type of writing, but with some serious caveats.

Third, and most worryingly, they are afraid of angering readers.

This is a contentious election, to say the least. As a voter living in the Philadelphia suburbs, one of those “swing communities,” I see this on the ground, literally. No matter how well supported they are, experts worry that voicing hateful opinions can lead to harassment online or offline. This is what all medical experts have become more careful about V after Covid. What might once have seemed like a public service, even an ethical imperative, now seems physically dangerous.

This means that knowledgeable people are less likely to offer informed opinions than ever before. The purpose of writing a good opinion is to help readers make sense of the world, to enable them to understand the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments. When the climate makes good faith debate dangerous, we all lose.

I would never want anyone to make an argument that they are uncomfortable with or, worse, that might cause them harm. But I hope that things change so that we can bring back the joy and reward of creating a bold, exciting article that drives people crazy in a good way.

As always, if you have a sharp and unexpected idea for an article, write to me: (email protected). You can find our recommendations Here.