By Caleb Hellerman
CNN Medical Senior Producer

A few weeks ago I saw something extraordinary: the medical planning book for one of President Bush’s presidential trips. It was almost three dozen pages. Not a briefing book, not a policy paper, just collected medical information, itineraries, routes and contact information for every possible specialist who might be in the area. What was really extraordinary is that this was no special moment – just a simple day trip, a half-day of official business in another state.

The president is no ordinary patient. As we put together a documentary, “Fit to Lead,” about White House medical care, we’ve seen again and again that caring for the president comes with special considerations. The logistics alone are staggering. Along with planning books like the one I saw, the president always has his doctor nearby, or one of a handful of backups on the White House medical staff. Air Force One has a mobile operating room on board. When the president is in a foreign country, some poor medical staffer has to lug around a heavy cooler filled with containers of the president’s blood type.

The stakes are high, but presidents are flesh and blood, subject to the same ailments as the rest of us. It’s just that when the president gets sick, it can change the course of history. Franklin Roosevelt was suffering from congestive heart failure at the Yalta peace talks after World War Two. He died two months later. Some historians say he wasn’t thinking clearly – that he never would have given Joseph Stalin so much control over Eastern Europe if he weren’t so sick and physically weak. Of course we’ll never know for sure.

These stakes are why the president’s health is so important. Why we go to such lengths to protect him (or her, someday). And why millions of Americans say the presidential candidates’ health is something they’ll consider when casting their vote.

Is your candidate’s health something you are considering when you cast your vote in November?

Programming note: Don’t miss CNN Special Investigations Unit “Fit to Lead” with Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Saturday and Sunday, October 11th and 12th at 8p and 11p ET

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Caleb Hellerman
CNN Senior Medical Producer

There’s a controversial new weapon to help fight off food poisoning. Today, the FDA is putting into action a plan that allows iceberg lettuce and spinach to be zapped with radiation, to kill bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli. Personally, I think it’s a great idea. Since 1995, there have been at least 22 outbreaks of E. coli poisoning, just linked to fresh-cut lettuce or spinach. When we investigated a 2006 outbreak that sickened more than 200 people and killed three of them, I learned that even a soak in a chlorine bath won’t wipe out E. coli. Irradiation is the only thing that comes close. That and cooking, which doesn’t help your salad. Watch more from Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Irradiation is already used to sterilize beef, spices and food packaging containers. But when I asked some friends if they’d eat irradiated food, they scrunched up their noses. No surprise to Cathleen Enright, the vice president of federal government affairs at the Western Growers Association, which represents about three-quarters of the spinach and lettuce growers in this country. I asked Enright when we might see irradiated salad in the grocery store, and she said it could be quite a while. “It’s going to be a business decision, and that factors in consumer acceptance.” She herself thinks irradiation is fine, but says “[it] does make some people nervous.”

The FDA says it’s safe, but consumer groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest say that’s based on old research. They say the jury is still out, and that we’d do better to focus on having more government safety inspections, and testing produce before it goes out to stores.

Are you more worried about dangerous bacteria or radiation on top of your salad? Yum!

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Caleb Hellerman
Senior Medical Producer

Having a baby is stressful. Even the third time around, there’s a room to prepare and clothes to pull from storage (”My God, those are tiny!”); there’s the actual birth (my wife does the heavy lifting) and there are siblings to reassure: “Why does the baby get to sleep in your bed?”  This month, my wife and I wrestled with another tough question: Should we sign up for cord blood banking?

Unless you’re a relatively new parent, this begs explanation.  The blood from a baby’s umbilical cord is rich in stem cells, the versatile cells that could eventually play a role in treating countless diseases.  Already they can be used to treat childhood leukemia, sickle cell anemia and a few other devastating conditions.  Stem cells from cord blood are considered especially useful, for their versatility in treatment and because they’re untainted by the outside environment.

Your doctor may be able to get stem cells through a public bank - but the odds of finding a genetic match are much better with cells from a family member, or, better yet, yourself. The stem cells from our newborn’s cord would be a perfect match for him, and could probably help his brother or sister, too.

So why not give it a shot? For one thing, as the glossy brochure points out, it costs almost $2,000, not to mention another $125 a year for storage.  We’re fortunate in that we can even consider writing a check that big, and it doesn’t come with a guarantee - at this point many promised stem cell therapies are still just theoretical.

With my first son and daughter, we donated the cord blood to a public bank.  But this time, in the end, we bit the bullet and signed up. The kit for the hospital is sitting on the counter by the phone, next to my wife’s toothbrush.

Is banking your baby’s cord blood a good idea? What’s the toughest medical decision you ever made as a parent? 

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.