Two things are crystal clear. The public has an absolute right to know the

president's medical condition. That's one. Number two, the president has an

absolute right not to tell you what his condition is and the doctors have an absolute

obligation to listen to the president under medical ethics and medical law.

So we have a clash we have a conflict between the public's right to know and the

president's right to not let you know. How should that conflict be resolved?

You'll hear it on the Dershove.

The public does have a right to know what the president's actual medical situation is,

but the president also has a right under medical ethics and

under the law not to tell you about his medical condition. There is a conflict. It's not as simple as the New York Times

editorial board or many editorial writers seem to suggest. It's not just the right to know it's the right to preserve

confidentiality and privacy and those clash even when the patient is the president of the United States.

Now President Trump has two sets of doctors presumably like many other people who work for the government.

He has his own private doctor paid for by himself, just like he has his own private lawyer paid

for by himself, And then he has the White House Doctor and

the doctors provided by Walter Reed Medical Center. And these doctors may have somewhat different obligations in relation to the

public and relation to the private patient. Remember that every private patient has a patient,

remember that every private patient has a general right not to have their medical history disclosed.

It's covered by law, it's covered by legal ethics, it's covered by the traditions of the medical profession, but there are

exceptions. There are exceptions. For example, if you bring your child into the

emergency room for treatment and your child has

has indications that he or she has been physically assaulted or

...