Healthy options

Do we need to know the details of the president's health? Perhaps, more precisely, do we have a right to know about it?

Everybody is speculating about what he might or might not have, or whether he has anything at all. It looks like the swirling rumors have even cost presidential spokesman Harry Roque his post. At the very least, it cost him his belief that he knew everything about the president, as it turns out he didn't know about the hospital check-up that occurred prior to his disavowal of any medical concern.

But all these brings me to the issue - are we entitled to know exactly what ails the president? Even though this is clearly sensitive personal data that falls within extra super confidential information that cannot be divulged except with the private individual's consent? (Yes, the legalese has come out. Sort of.)

Of course everyone wants to know it. The Marcosians want to know if their gargantuan efforts to derail Leni Robredo’s vice presidency (so Bong-bong can fill in the vacancy if the president steps down) are all for naught. The human rights campaigners are fervently hoping they can soon take a breather from fighting against extrajudicial killings.

In turn, the businessmen are wondering how to position themselves in case the rulers are displaced. The foreign investors don't like the uncertainty of the economy and the presidential policies that have been rolled out, and are either staying away or pulling out their investments from what used to seem like a great place to do business. The socialites are wondering who they need to suck up to, and the parasites...well, they aren't wondering. They're still sucking up, but just in varying degrees and intensities.

But do all these important considerations outweigh the individual's sacred right to privacy?

Remember lupus and ex-president Marcos? No one knew his breathing was coming in desperate gasps. If we knew, perhaps there would have been less stress for the anti-Marcos forces. Knowing about a leader's deteriorating health helps in transition planning.

If current laws do protect government officials in keeping their right to their health information, do the laws need to be revised? Much as threats to public safety should override an individual's privacy right, (like if one has an infectious zombie virus strain and escapes from a medical facility), could we impose the requirement that incoming government leaders, because of the importance of their position to the future of the state, should automatically waive their right to keep their medical records confidential?

I hear affirmative votes from the ghoulish gossip. But aside from these bystanders, is this a good idea? (As someone with no plans to run for an elective post, I think so!)

Of course, there should be exceptions. Like if the government officials have venereal diseases that drip and smell, we don't necessarily need to know about it. (HIV status is, of course, privileged and respected.) Constant headaches and hot flashes don't need to be divulged. Pimples and blackheads, really irrelevant.

If members of Congress are experiencing their menstrual cycles, well, really. No way. No need. Not even to explain irrational anger or public tantrums. That should be kept to themselves. In fact, we need a gag order to keep those bits of info dammed in.

We certainly do get a plethora of health information when government officials try to escape hearings or investigations. Then we are fed even minor arcana like blood pressure levels or heart murmurings as their pathetic reason for being unable to show up. If they open those doors, then I say we should enter when we want to.