CBC started a story today on the World at Six by floating the following question (paraphrased):
How much should citizens know about the health of their elected officials?
The question was raised because Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador requires some sort of heart surgery for which he is travelling to the United States to have performed. Critics say there's nothing being done in the US that isn't being done here in Canada, so there's no reason for him to skirt our health system. Williams says he will explain everything when he has returned.
Do we have the right to know about his condition? What about other politicians and their health issues? How much do we deserve to know?
No
No, because the critics make it clear by their interest that this knowledge would only be used for political purposes (thus how he chooses to look after his health becomes someone else's debate ammunition?)
As well, the topic is directly getting into doctor-patient confidentiality. In fact, it's exactly the issue. Does being a higher profile individual make all your 'confidential information' fair game? Does 'confidential' mean anything anymore? Learning this dood has a heart condition is well beyond anyone else's 'right' to know.
I understand it's a loaded question, because it really isn't about the individual at all, it's about all the politics surrounding that person. I'm gonna stick with the rights of the individual, and call the politics out for what it is: a big load of BS.
devil's advocate
Okay I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a bit though
Does your opinion change at all when it's the health of the individuals in an upcoming election? I'm speaking of the 2008 presidential election in the US here, where presidential candidate John McCain's age and health were repeatedly brought into question, as he had suffered numerous undisclosed health issues in the short years previous. Many people wondered if they would actually even be voting for him, or if their votes were essentially votes for Sarah Palin - someone even most Republican's did not want to see as a sitting president.
In this case, it was the opposition asking less about the candidate's health than the candidate's supporters themselves. These people had what they felt was a legitimate concern about an individual seeking public office.
The point they made was that we expect our elected officials to be in such a state of health that they can perform the job we are demanding of them. An individual who has undisclosed health problems cannot be trusted in this manner to the same extent as an individual who discloses their medical issues.
Same
Stays the same. There isn't a right to know.
People can choose their votes for whatever reasons they want. If this dood's health is an issue, nobody has any right to know answers, but it may be in his best interest to give the details himself. It should be entirely his call.
fair enough
Alright fair enough... that mostly reflects my opinion on it too. I'm not entirely convinced that it should always be the case, but in general it seems more... appropriate somehow.
Probly
I could imagine exceptions, but I doubt a mentally handicapped severe burn victim is going to run for Prime Minister any time soon.
Medical
I have to take a medical exam every 3 years for my job. My employer does not get the results, they merely get a: FIT or NOT FIT rating.
That would seem a reasonable requirement for certain elected offices, IMO. Especially when looking at the US President, VP, maybe a few others - they hold the nuke keys and all that.
fair
That sounds like a pretty fair solution really. I can't see anything wrong with that at all.
Gadzooks
"I can't see anything wrong with that at all."
Good think I have that 3-year medical, my heart almost didn't take the shock! :)
I'm going to mark this in my calendar, lol.
It seems to me to be the only way to preserve my privacy while providing an acceptable standard of safety for the general public, since my ability to perform my job competently directly impacts their chances of living!
For example, I wouldn't want someone working in my position that has fainting spells or a severe heart condition but I also wouldn't want my employer to have access to my medical records. Confidentially is pretty non-existent within organizations, regardless of whatever BS paperwork that you sign. If I had herpes for example, the whole company would probably know within a week.
now this could be a very convoluted situation
I'm not sure how anyone, in good conscious, could run for public office whilst suffering from a possibly debilitating illness.
Being in public office is stressful enough for someone in peak physical condition, I can't imagine the toll it would take upon someone who is suffering from an illness.
Where the situation becomes convoluted - perhaps contradictory is a better term, is in deciding how much private medical information should or shouldn't become common knowledge.
I agree, the past teaches us that the opposing politicians would launch an "unfit for service" campaign the moment any information about the ill health of an opponent became public knowledge.
However, individuals have the right to privacy about their medical status, and an expectation that said knowledge would not be and cannot be used against them by their employer. However, an employer - in this case the Canadian public - has a right to know about any pre-existing medical conditions which can affect the performance of the job, as well as how it may affect the person's ability to actually show up for work on a regular basis.
After the person is employed, it is a different story, so long as the illness manifested after the term of employment started.
So here we are in a situation where, as employers, we have an expectation of honesty about the medical condition of our prospective employees, but these self-same prospective employees have an expectation of privacy about any existing medical conditions.
We should also be concerned about the on-going health of our employees and how the rigors of the job could affect any pre-existing conditions.
Definitely a quandary, for which there is no easy answer.
I suppose we have to trust that those who run for public office have the good sense to take into consideration their medical condition. The party to which they belong should take this into consideration during the nomination phase.
Perhaps that is one possible answer, the political parties could be charged with ensuring that their candidates are in good medical health and able to perform for the term of the office. If they fail to do so, and it is discovered that an elected person suffered from a debilitating medical condition prior to their election, which resulted in their having to vacate the seat for medical reasons, they would forfeit the seat, and the runner-up would assume the office.