Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Tribune News Service
Tribune News Service
Comment
Daily News Editorial Board

Editorial: Fetterman’s health and readiness: What the Senate candidate owes voters

Last week, in his first in-person TV interview since a May stroke, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate John Fetterman relied on closed-captioning technology to aid with his auditory processing problems and garbled a few spoken words. It’s fair game for voters as they choose between him and Republican Mehmet Oz — but by our lights, Fetterman passed the key test, which was demonstrating that he’s intellectually capable of serving.

Yes, Fetterman required what disabled Americans call an accommodation, in this case a computer screen that transcribed reporter Dasha Burns’ questions as she spoke them, then answered unassisted. Few would begrudge a hard-of-hearing person making use of a hearing aid or a legally blind leader (which New York had not long ago) needing help recognizing faces or reading documents.

Indeed, in this case, the crutch on which Fetterman leans is probably temporary. He’s better today than he was in the summer, and is likely to be better still by the time he sits in the Senate, should he win. Oz, a medical doctor, should understand all this rather than mocking his health.

Far more important is that the substance of Fetterman’s answers, on abortion and crime and fracking and health care and other substantive subjects, was coherent. An Oct. 25 debate, which must go forward, will be a second high-stakes test.

That said, Fetterman doesn’t help himself by refusing to release additional medical records. In June, his campaign revealed that in 2017, doctors had diagnosed a serious abnormal heart rhythm; in the interim, Fetterman then failed to follow doctor’s orders.

The transparency bar is justifiably highest for presidents and would-be presidents, as they are auditioning to take on singular power, including command of the U.S. military. The Senate is different, but still, when questions swirl, a decent respect for voters should prompt a candidate to err on the side of transparency. Voters don’t need to know whether someone has ever taken antidepressants; they are owed clarity on life-threatening conditions.

———

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.