I guess, to be more clear, is that his cancer combined with the comorbidity of his age means he is way more likely to experience these kind of complications when it comes to surgery.
So yes, younger people with cancer wouldn’t be disqualified from the same position.
But where do you draw the line in a way that wouldn’t be heavily abused for political purposes? I’m not very interested in the idea of evaluating people’s morbidity as a qualification for office. There are succession procedures and chains of authority to handle these things. It’s one thing to argue about age’s impact on current mental or physical faculties if those are inhibiting performance, but I do not want hypothetical deaths factoring in.
I guess, to be more clear, is that his cancer combined with the comorbidity of his age means he is way more likely to experience these kind of complications when it comes to surgery.
So yes, younger people with cancer wouldn’t be disqualified from the same position.
But where do you draw the line in a way that wouldn’t be heavily abused for political purposes? I’m not very interested in the idea of evaluating people’s morbidity as a qualification for office. There are succession procedures and chains of authority to handle these things. It’s one thing to argue about age’s impact on current mental or physical faculties if those are inhibiting performance, but I do not want hypothetical deaths factoring in.