Haaretz Editorial: Who Decided To Conceal Truth About PM Sharon's Health From The Public?

2006-01-17

[IMRA: It would be naive to think that the same "ends justify the means" folks who decided to conceal the truth about PM Sharon's health are not today concealing crucial information on other matters that might interfere with a Kadima victory on election day.]

Partial Concealment

Most of the questions raised about the quality of treatment given to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are essentially medical, but beyond that, there are other questions of public concern. Who, for example, decided to conceal from the public the truth about the blood vessel disease diagnosed after Sharon's first stroke? And did doctors issue the partial medical report in good faith, or in consultation with Sharon and his advisers?

There is no doubt that the doctors who treated Sharon, both his personal physicians and Hadassah's doctors, are obliged by law to maintain medical confidentiality regarding the patient's condition, unless he explicitly permitted them to share the information with others. The patient's bill of rights does not distinguish between an ordinary citizen and a public figure, and if Sharon decided to hide from the public his blood vessel disease, one cannot expect the doctors to betray his trust.

However, Sharon's doctors, including the director of Hadassah Hospital, gave the misleading impression that they were giving the public a full and detailed report, sometimes too detailed, while in fact they were concealing the cerebral amyloid angiopathy, which had been discovered during the first hospitalization. This disease is characterized by buildup of protein deposits in the vessel walls, causing the blood vessels to crack and increases the risk of bleeding. The existence of such deposits characterizes Alzheimer's disease. This information is relevant to the question, whether the prime minister is capable of dealing with another term in office. This information might or might not have influenced the voters. Had the doctors kept silent, leaving the family and Prime Minister's Office to do the reporting, nobody could have complained. However, the doctors tried to simultaneously give and withhold information.

On December 26, eight days after Sharon's first hospitalization, his doctors held a news conference at which they appeared to provide the entire medical findings. Professor Bolek Goldman said at the time that "with the prime minister's consent, we are at your disposal to provide full disclosure of the prime minister's condition following his hospitalization."

The doctors told the journalists not only of the cerebral event, but also of the gout disease ailing the prime minister, his hypoactive thyroid gland, and even passing ailments like his backaches. The briefing gave the false impression that nothing had been withheld. In fact, they concealed the very information that could have cast a shadow on the prime minister's capacity.

After the first hospitalization, Sharon would have done the right thing by voluntarily waiving medical confidentiality and allowing the doctors to report the whole truth. This applies to any senior public official who suffers a serious disease. The doctors on their part should not have cooperated with the selective reporting, as they are not supposed to be part of the prime minister's public relations team. They could have chosen one of two possibilities: either to avoid reporting to the public altogether, or to disclose the whole truth.

Source: IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis