Health is a public matter

We’re glad to hear Jim Flaherty is OK. This week, the finance minister revealed personal details about his health — he’s being treated for bullous pemphigoid, a rare condition that causes skin to blister — that prompted questions about how much “private” information Canadians are entitled to regarding the health of public officials.

Most of us would feel violated if our private health issues became public knowledge. No doubt, politicians feel the same way. There is, however, a big difference. Our health issues don’t affect anyone beyond family, friends and colleagues. Politicians’ ill-health can influence millions. So where do we draw the line?

During the Second World War, few Britons knew Winston Churchill was a depressive alcoholic. Franklin Roosevelt’s need for a wheelchair was kept from the American public. Should people have known? Would such knowledge have influenced the war effort? (Better Churchill drunk than any teetotalling politician of the day!)

Closer to home, Jack Layton died of cancer shortly after the 2011 election campaign. Might people have voted differently if they’d known how sick he was? The loss of an opposition leader in office is certainly the public’s business. Had he won he would have been prime minister.

Much depends on the circumstances, but a politician can’t avoid questions about serious health issues. In Flaherty’s case, his condition and treatment don’t appear to undermine his capacities — he doesn’t need to land an airplane — but it was clear he was not well and it was appropriate to inform the public. He remains a most able minister. So long as his health doesn’t compromise his duties, his privacy should be respected.

As a man of integrity, Canadians should expect him to know when the public interest supersedes his privacy, or when his abilities are overly compromised.