Everyone says Jayalalithaa is fine

Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa has been ailing for more than a fortnight now. The state government is silent on illness of its head.

The private hospital where she is admitted has only issued a couple of vague and reverential health bulletins.

Leaders of the ruling party claim that her condition is improving and that she is talking to officials and ministers. They say the administration of the state is running smoothly.

In the absence of a clear message emanating from Chennai about her health condition, social media is rife with rumours about her sickness, some even proclaiming that she is no more. The secrecy about Jayalalithaa's health has also led to political bickering in the state.

Different codes of medical ethics mandate confidentiality about a patient's health. The situation arising out of ill-health of a prime minister or a chief minister, however, is different because it becomes an issue of public interest as we have seen in the case of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently.

If we can have records of wealth and criminal cases of politicians in public domain, why not be transparent about their health too?

People in a democratic set up have a right to know about ability or inability of their leaders to rule them.

A leader's health can have far-reaching impact on public policy and even change the course of history. This was amply demonstrated in the case of US President Franklin D Roosevelt, who got re-elected to office in November 1944 despite having uncontrolled high blood pressure.

Some historians believe that his ill health - which manifested in lack of capacity to concentrate - may have compromised America's position at the Yalta Conference within a few weeks of which he expired.

Closer home is the example of how an illness of a politician can affect public policy in a positive way.

NCP leader Sharad Pawar underwent a surgery for mouth cancer attributed to habit of chewing gutkha in 2002.

Within weeks of this, the NCP-Congress government in Maharashtra decided to ban manufacture and sale of gutkha in the state.

It was a politically unpopular move but good for public health - which experts feel was a result of Pawar becoming a victim of gutkha. So, it is fallacy to say that a leader's health is a private affair and not linked to larger public good.

It applies to leaders in the opposition too. For instance, the state of the health of Congress president Sonia Gandhi has a direct bearing on the future of the main Opposition party.

We need to strike a balance between medical ethics and public interest.

If Jayalalithaa is not fit enough to take a decision about making public the nature of her illness, the call should be taken by close relatives, caregivers and doctors.

They can identify her illness and her response to treatment, while keeping her medical data and records confidential.

A state which is as big as a country like Thailand in terms of population can't be held hostage to the whims of a group of individuals.

(Courtesy of Mail Today.)

Also read - Cauvery crisis: Is Jayalalithaa's absence costing Tamil Nadu?