Public Figures & Privacy

Everyone has at least a passing familiarity with privacy laws. And despite occasional reservations, people tend to believe these are a good idea. But what about privacy when it comes to the health status of public figures – politicians, heads of major corporations, and celebrities? Do such individuals represent a special case, with privacy not, or less applicable? Have those who have voluntarily stepped into the spotlight, knowing they will be under the media microscope, essentially given implied consent for any and all types of discovery and disclosure?

Politics

It's obvious (and an understatement to say) that the person leading a country holds a job of considerable importance. With this in mind, comes the common notion that the voting public should know if candidates have an illness that will likely result in them being able to do the job.

Recent history provides several examples of politicians who have not been entirely forthcoming about their health, with perhaps the most famous being presidents John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In both cases, history seems to conclude that things went fine, despite the public not being aware of Kennedy's Addison's disease or Roosevelt's paralysis and declining health, which saw him die shortly after beginning his final term in office.

At same time, others have been very open about their health. Consider Vice President Dick Cheney: With a decades-long history of several heart attacks, a quadruple bypass, stenting, angioplasty, a pacemaker, DVT, and more, he is someone whom many would have written off as having more than one foot in the grave – yet he is still going strong and is successfully completing a second term as VP. Disclosure has not harmed him … but the volume of information would probably have been difficult to hide.

Similarly, Republican presidential candidate, John McCain has also been very forthcoming about his medical history. In light of the oft-debated concern about McCain being "too old," one could argue that it is in his best interests to discuss his health – particularly if the news is good. One could also say that speculation could be worse than any actual condition a person may have, as could the constant digging by the media.

So are there any "shoulds" or "musts" regarding disclosure? Not really. An April 1, 2004 iHealthBeat article , written in advance of the last presidential election, quoted medical ethicist and Boston University professor George Annas, as saying, "The only medical information to which the public should feel entitled is information that indicates, to a reasonable medical probability, that a presidential candidate will not survive a four-year term, or will not be able to function mentally in a reasonable manner." Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, another Boston University professor, political science professor Michael Corgan, was quoted in an August 20, 2004 Boston Globe article as saying, "Politicians are under a moral obligation to reveal conditions that, with the judgment of medical professionals, may impede their judgment." (And he added, "But this is also a practical matter. People are going to find out anyway.") However, a third scenario seems to warrant disclosure: A condition whose treatment would mean the person would be unable to devote a full-time effort to the job of leadership.

Business

There's an old saying, "Knowledge is Power." Perhaps a more modern version would be: "Knowledge is Money." So it's perhaps not surprising that in summer 2008, concern was raised over the health of Steve Jobs, co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Apple, who had appeared at a conference, reportedly looking ill. (He had been treated for pancreatic cancer several years ago.) But while people seeking to sink a large chunk of change into a company may reasonably want to avoid buying into a corporate lemon, the risk factor isn't really on the same scope as national leadership. Furthermore, to use the Apple example, while Jobs has obviously been instrumental in the company's success, he has not been solely responsible for it. Should he unfortunately meet with an untimely demise in the near future, people would not stop purchasing iPhones, iPods, and the like, because they are good products. And it's easier to get rid of a CEO (unless perhaps s/he is also the majority shareholder in the company) than it is to get rid of an elected representative whose term is not over.

Celebrity

The disclosure of health status really isn't as big an issue with celebrities. For one thing, starring in a film, or even a TV show from which you could be written out, is a shorter commitment than a typical term of office. And while celebrities often appear on people's "The Person I Most Admire" lists, they certainly don't have a job with the same sort of significance as a world leader. If the latest Hollywood hot commodity dropped dead today, the markets wouldn't suffer, foreign governments wouldn't try to gain leverage, etc.

Judging by the tabloids and entertainment shows, the public is more interested in celebrities' purchases, attire, and scandals. So unless the health situation is something potentially sensational or shocking, like a trip to rehab or a massive weight gain, it doesn't really matter to most people. What's more, one could argue that since the role of a celebrity is to be literally and figuratively in the spotlight, and that since their job, for which they are typically overpaid, is to entertain, they should therefore, entertain us with whatever will entertain us, even if that means their health status. After all, they are perhaps the only true illustration of the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

Finally …

Is health status really that big a deal? Even in the case of political leaders, there is always someone there – who is theoretically competent – to take his or her place should the need arise. That's what vice presidents, deputy prime ministers, and heirs apparent are for. Similarly, some companies (such as Apple) do succession planning.

Frankly, regarding politicians at least, I am more interested in their intelligence and mental health, rather than their general health. And I'm more interested in knowing whether they're up to no good – cheating, lying, making 'errors in judgment,' and so forth. It's not voyeurism. Think about it: We all get sick, and we're all going to die, but we don't all stand up and campaign on moral values and integrity, and assert that, if you elect us, we will make sound decisions and you can trust our word.

Discuss This Article

Have something you'd like to say? Tell us what you think! Read and post comments for this article.

Find a Job

Choose your career:

MedHunters is the world's biggest healthcare job board. Our job directory has 18,054 jobs with 2,520 hospitals and other direct employers.

We want you to find your next job on MedHunters. Need Help? Call us at 1-888-884-8242, email us at info@medhunters.com or sign up now.