The bullseye on Bush
It came out earlier this month that President Bush was treated a year ago for what looked like a case of Lyme disease*. This information only came to light recently as part of the president's annual physical -- and it was a bit of a footnote. The low-key manner of the disclosure prompted a few accusations that the White House was "hiding" Bush's condition. Of course, these accusations were probably inflected by partisanship. But even the AP accorded the story a bit of a raised eyebrow. From the story (emphasis added):
President Bush was treated for Lyme disease last August, the White House announced Wednesday after failing to disclose the problem for nearly a year.
According to reports, Bush got the standard course of antibiotics and he didn't seem to encounter any symptoms beyond the infamous bullseye rash. And the team of physicians checking under the president's hood declared him, according to the White House, "in superior fitness for a man his age."
Did it matter that the American public wasn't aware of Mr. Bush's rash? Um, probably not. But then, again, why do we even bother with the multi-doctor, multi-day presidential check-up? Is it for propaganda purposes? (Yeah, we're bogged down in Iraq, but for an old guy, our commander-in-chief can totally rock a mountain bike!) Sure, there's probably some of that, especially after all the presidential ailments that have gone hidden throughout history. But there is a practical part to it all, as well: Mr. Bush is the head of state and if his health was seriously compromised, we'd all probably want to know.
So, where do we draw the line? What constitutes a "reportable" presidential ailment? And in what detail? Should the president's colonoscopy be put on YouTube? Does the President of the United States have a right to medical privacy?
That image at the top of this post is from Design Observer, which had a little fun with the presidential rash idea.
*Apparently Texas has its own Lyme-like disease called STARI. Unlike other things, though, it appears to be smaller in Texas.
-Greg Dahlmann
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
There are several related questions here: does the President have a right to medical privacy is one, but another distinct (albeit related) question is what the President is morally required to disclose. The fact (at least, I think it is a fact) that the President has a right to medical privacy that would prevent unconsented disclosure is consistent with the President's being morally required to disclose. In the context of presidential candidates, Julie Fagan, Alan Rubel, and I have articulated and defended a standard that requires disclosure of any medical conditions that are likely to seriously undermine the President's ability to fulfill the core functions of the office of the presidency (Med and Phl, 2006). Considerations include the interest the candidates have in maintaining privacy, the interest the public has in not being mislead by sensationalist reporting of trivial conditions (one of the headlines is "White House hid Bush's Lyme Disease"), people's right to information necessary for making informed voting decisions (derived from their right to be governed only with their consent).
From what I understand about the implications of lyme disease, and how easily it is treated if identified early, I don't think a strong case could be made that it would satisfy our standard. Since I think our standard also serves as a helpful guide to what the news media should be focusing on, I think it safe to say that the media has more important things to be informed the American public about right now.
- by Rob Streiffer on Aug 25, 2007 at 9:25 AM | link