TPM Reader AS checks in with a professionally informed opinion on whether Michele Bachmann’s migraines are a disqualifying condition to be President:
As much as it pains me to support Bachmann in this headache business, the letter from the House MD (apologies) would support garden variety migraines that should not interfere with Presidential duties much. I work as an internist in the hospital setting, a stroke hospital in particular, and care for many patients admitted with uncontrolled or severe migraines. If the letter from the house physician is the complete summary of her headache condition, then this is not really fair to consider as an impediment to being President (being a charlatan with a mix of xenophobic, supply-side evangelist, and end times world views certainly is).
Sumitriptan and ondansetron can both be a bit sedating, but the effects last just a few hours. These are rather standard abortive medications for migraine and neither are particularly habit forming. What would be more interesting would be if she needed to take a daily prophylactic medicine such as topamax (topiramate, or “dopamax” based on its undesirable effects on cognition).
Also concerning would be frequent use of over the counter medicines as simple as Tylenol, Excedrin, or Advil if used more than once or twice a week as this would indicate that her headaches are indeed not controlled with her current regimen. A migraine and the meds used to treat it can easily incapacitate someone from work related activities for 24-36 hours potentially. Having these once a week can be a serious problem in a position of responsibility.
Three things of interest to me: Does she need/use any opiate medications to control he headaches (what people commonly refer to as narcotics)? How many times per month does she have a migraine? Does she get medications for her headaches from a physician other than the letter writer?
I suspect the letter was an attempt to defuse quickly a campaign-killing meme. I also suspect, just as Bachmann hides the fact she worked as an attorney contracted by the same IRS she rails against, and her husband’s business was supported by the same government programs she assails, that this is not the complete story.
What do you think?
