I just thought it was so funny they didn't investigate clots in the first place. She's lucky to be alive. I guess a lot of docs don't take emboli seriously as they claim to. Got a feeling Clinton may be suing someone.

You wouldn't investigate a clot unless you were suspicious of a clot. No one knows for sure what exactly went down so I'm not getting how you draw the conclusion it was neglect on the doctor's part.

@elsners

Why would being on warfarin disqualify her from being POTUS? I'm just not seeing it.

@emboligirl
" I just thought it was so funny they didn't investigate clots in the first place. She's lucky to be alive. I guess a lot of docs don't take emboli seriously as they claim to. Got a feeling Clinton may be suing someone."

I thought that strange also, since Ms. Clinton had already had clots before. That should have made them start scrambling------ even looking at in 'rare' (!) locations.

Toss, I don't see it either.

There is an obvious element of negligence on the doctor's part.

Doctors uses a risk analysis to rule out DVT/PE/Other clots. It's called Wells Criterion, along with a couple of other criterions for clots in other areas....

1. Long Flights Check
2. Dehydration Check
3. Previous clotting episode Check
4. Fainting Check

And if she's on HRT (and there is a big possibility she is), there is an increased risk. Someone who just diagnoses 'dehydration' obviously is not asking their patient the right questions, which are standard questions for ruling out clots post long international trips.

I don't see how having health concerns is a problem for her day job. Lot of male pollies have health concerns. Would people be questioning her ability is she wasn't a woman?

Of course, it is also possible that they aren't telling us everything that happened with her doctor appointments. No reason to release every last detail, so maybe we just don't know everything that went on and was evaluated.

I don't know that anyone could sue anyone else, since she hasn't suffered any permanent damage. But, really, that's outside of my level of expertise...

I was waiting for elsner to answer the query about 'taking warfarin'.

How I interpreted that was not so much the fact that Clinton was taking warfarin but that she had a 'perceived' health condition (by the general and voting public) that might make her performance as POTUS iffy. And POTUS isn't exactly an easy job. :)

And wasn't there a senator just today that returned to the Senate stairs after having suffered a major stroke? That may have been a bit of clever PR due to the timing but good for him!

No, we're not receiving anything but the clean version of what's going on behind the scenes. But that's normal for this type of thing.

Cave

You stated part of it " is she disqualified from being POTUS"
1. could she be elected? Not in the past a President would have to be in very good health, able to last the term with energy.
2.could she do the job? So many here speak of the fog, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety fear of another attach. I thought these would be an "understood" on this site.
3. The real or perceived weakness of a sitting president could be used by our enemies and friends alike. Or even the opposing party.
4. A shadow President would most likely evolve, not the one elected .

@elsners

I'm not any sort of political analyst, but I'm just not seeing a long-term effect on her political career from this. A lot of presidents take medicine for stuff, I'm sure and I don't know that it would matter one whit if it is warfarin or something else. For a lot of people it is just "medicine," like they take every day for whatever ails them.

I mean, one of the common complaints on this board is that we don't "look" sick and people can't tell if we're really suffering or not. If she doesn't look "sick" and she doesn't act "sick," then people screaming that she can't do the job because she's "sick," are just kind of going to look like idiots, which takes #3 off the table.

Besides, if she doesn't feel tired, anxiety, etc. (and not all do) than both #1 and #2 are off the table, too.

And I'm skeptical about #4 happening either. She fights her own battles, from what I've seen.

IMHO, the only "perceived weakness" she's dealing with right now in a race for POTUS is that she's female. I mean, I don't know if I'd vote for her as POTUS or not, but her being or not being on warfarin wouldn't factor into my decision-making at all.

Not that I'm trying to start a political debate, I'm just not seeing this as a long-term factor.

I feel fantastic and have been on warfarin for over 5 years. I don't think you can merely go by what people here on this site experience as what everyone who has ever had a blood clot experiences, and besides, some of the difficulties people experience during recovery is related to the PE itself. To my knowledge, H Clinton didn't have a PE unless they're keeping that under wraps for now or I missed it.

This is kind of interesting:
http://www.answers.com/topic/presidential-health

Not that our jobs are as important as the POTUS, but all of us who work are held to a high standard to perform and some of us work in very stressful, competitive environments and still excel at our jobs despite having had blood clots and being on warfarin.

Yeah I could care less about the political side of things. I just think assuming people are going to be long suffering and useless post clot diagnosis just victimizes us. In the early days after my PE recovery when I did feel like hell and was anxious, I hid it pretty well from others in my life so that I'd not be perceived as weak and oh poor me. Most people who work have to find a way to suck it up in the work force. It's that simple.

Toss,
Me quoting me:

"How I interpreted that was not so much the fact that Clinton was taking warfarin but that she had a 'perceived' health condition (by the general and voting public) that might make her performance as POTUS iffy."

I want to stress the word 'voting' public.

Toss, you said:

"A lot of presidents take medicine for stuff"

Yes, they do. They're human just like us. But in recent years presidential candidates are vetted much more aggressively than they were in past years. The opposition party will do that on their own. :)

I do see your point, Cave, but it just doesn't seem like the voting public cares much about health conditions unless they are major, in-your-face, guy-goes-into-convulsions-during-meetings kinds of thing. I mean, the releases of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romeny's health issues during the campaign had no discernible effect that I saw on the campaign for EITHER side ... and Romney is taking aspirin and Lipitor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/09/21/paul-ryan-and-mitt-romney-release-medical-records/) Of course, aspirin is ALSO a blood thinner...

I think, were I to guess, that the voting public figures she had something, she took medicine, and now she's better. I mean, for the most part, blood clots are considered an acute problem, not a chronic one, so I doubt most folks will see it any other way.

Also, by the time we get to campaign 2016 (should Hillary decide to run), I think this will be so far in the past that no one will even remember it.

Not that any of us can predict the future, but I'd wager we hear nothing about this ever again unless she gets another clot during the campaign itself.

"I think, were I to guess, that the voting public figures she had something, she took medicine, and now she's better. I mean, for the most part, blood clots are considered an acute problem, not a chronic one, so I doubt most folks will see it any other way. "

Good point, Toss, and probably hits close to the mark. Anything that's 'below the fold' is history to the public.

The sequelae of a PE is, as they say, "not fully understood". :)

John McCain ran for president as a cancer survivor.

Dick Chaney has had multiple heart attacks and still was found fit to be VP, which is relevant in that he would ascend to POTUS if needed. And he too was treated for a DVT.