By Jacob M. Appel, M.D.

Two candidates are running for president. The older of the two is the Democratic incumbent who survived an attempted coup at the outset of his administration and whose campaign is centered upon having returned the nation to stability. Yet his years in office have taken their toll and appear to many observers to have exhausted him. His advisers scrupulously manage his public appearances to conceal his mobility difficulties.

In contrast, the Republican challenger, slightly younger, when not in court or at his country club, travels the country, hosting large rallies and showcasing his supposed vigor. He is overweight but otherwise appears to be in good physical health. At a time of vocal dissent at home and unprecedented challenges abroad, voters wonder which candidate, if either, is most physically and psychologically fit to lead the nation.

This scenario is far from hypothetical. The American voter would have faced precisely such a dilemma in 1940—the year Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Wendell Willkie for a third term in the White House.

For those keeping a medical scorecard, Roosevelt soon led the country through the Second World War and secured a fourth term in 1944. That same year, the younger and supposedly much healthier Willkie suffered a series of major heart attacks and died before the expiration of what would have been his first term in office. Rather than an anomaly, such medical “surprises” are as much the rule as the exception in presidential politics.

In the current presidential election cycle, voters have consistently expressed concerns about the physical and psychological health of both candidates. Whether such concerns are likely to change voters’ preferences is much less clear. Nevertheless, medical and mental health practitioners are often asked to weigh in on the candidates’........

© Psychology Today