World leaders must be more open about their health

November 12, 2008

Anyone who runs for Prime Minister or President should have an independent health examination to ensure their ability to govern, argues a doctor on bmj.com today.

Lord David Owen, a trained doctor and member of the House of Lords, says that millions of people are affected by the decisions of people in high public office, and these leaders have an obligation to the general public to ensure that their decision making is not impaired by physical or mental illness.

No one has to stand for high public office he says, "if potential candidates knew they faced independent assessment and that they had a health problem then they would either not stand or they would make it public of their own volition."

According to Owen, many heads of governments and their personal doctors do not tell the truth about their illness and have received inferior medical treatment as a result of this secrecy. For example, when Francois Mitterrand was President of France he kept his cancer of the prostate and secondaries in the bone secret for 11 years, even though his personal doctor made monthly public statements about his health with no mention of his true medical condition.

More recently, despite happily revealing his medical records from Vietnam, in the run up to the US elections, Senator McCain was not so open about his malignant melanoma diagnosis.

When in office, leaders should be obliged to have an annual independent health check to ensure that they are fit for office and are able to step down temporarily or permanently if their illness is affecting their capacity to do the job, writes Owen.

In 1998, the Prime Minister of Norway suffered a severe depressive reaction and offered to resign. But, after discussion with the Foreign Minister, he publicly announced that he was suffering from depression, and after four weeks of treatment and adapting his working practices he returned to work. His actions commanded great respect from the Norwegian public and helped lessen the stigma surrounding mental health.

According to Owen, this example illustrates the lessening prejudice and much greater public understanding of illness. A greater openness would not necessarily preclude someone with an illness from convincing their party and the public that they are fit for office, he concludes.

Source: British Medical Journal

Explore further: Florida's giant snails prove to be a slippery foe

Related Stories

Scientist: Oil slick likely from natural seafloor seepage

July 30, 2015

Coast Guard officials were still trying to determine the source of a mysterious miles-long oil slick off California's Santa Barbara County shoreline, but a scientist said Thursday that it's likely the result of naturally ...

Are we born racist? Bias expert answers timely questions

July 28, 2015

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, PhD, professor of psychology and Richard & Rhoda Goldman distinguished professor of social sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, recently co-edited a book called Are We Born Racist?: ...

Recommended for you

How the finch changes its tune

August 3, 2015

Like top musicians, songbirds train from a young age to weed out errors and trim variability from their songs, ultimately becoming consistent and reliable performers. But as with human musicians, even the best are not machines. ...

Machine Translates Thoughts into Speech in Real Time

December 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.