Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
An unhealthy precedent from the presidents
- Adam Di Chiara (12 November 2008)
-
How much privacy should a world leader have ?
- Alexander SD Spiers (19 November 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Adam Di Chiara, BMA, NUJ Father of Chapel (personal capacity) BMJ Editorial
Send response to journal:
|
I am not one to normally defend the privileges or working conditions of the elected elite, generally they have it far too easy, but in this instance it is necessary to defend their right to privacy--so the rest of us don't end up having none later. An open and honest government would be a real treat, indeed it would be a refreshing change, but to demand the disclosure of politicians' medical records onto the public domain is a step too far, and could become the thin end of a particularly harmful wedge; where would this precedent from the presidents apply next; to all government employees, council staff, public sector workers in the NHS? Or would it just get tied in with the proposed national ID card? In his article Lord Owen suggests that people are "less prejudiced" today, and I'd hope this were true, but this doesn't necessarily translate into a positive insurance or mortgage assessment. Or even into an accurate medical understanding by Journalists in the media. Politicians health can become an issue and some obviously try to hide their medical conditions from colleagues and their Party sometimes to their own detriment. A better solution would be for parliament to keep all this in-house, it could have a Parliamentary Doctor and clinic, and politicians records could be held in confidence and accessed appropriately. Now if this idea were translated to every workplace, general health may indeed be raised across the country, and employees, but especially men, may find it more convenient and easier to access a Doctor. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexander SD Spiers, Professor of Medicine (retired). N/A.
Send response to journal:
|
One must agree with Lord Owen that if a world leader has a significant illness that might impair his or her abilities, judgement, or competence, this is a seriously risky situation. The risk is enhanced if the illness is kept secret. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to insist that public figures - politicians, film stars, writers - have no right to personal privacy. I agree with Mr. Di Chiara that their intimate medical records should not be made available to the general public. What is the best compromise ? The individuals themselves should not be required to announce the details of their medical records. Their doctors should not be required to make public statements about such details, because this would constitute a serious breach of the doctor/patient relationship. Most members of the general public are not equipped to evaluate detailed medical information if it were made public. The public interest and personal privacy would be best served if the medical problems - or lack of them - of a president or prime minister were reviewed in confidence by a small group of independent medical experts who could identify any threat to the public interest and make appropriate but also confidential recommendations to the vice president, deputy prime minister, or cabinet. Not only the electorate, but also the world leader concerned, could be greatly benefited by this approach. Competing interests: None declared |
|||