After Sen. John Kerry went into the hospital for prostate cancer surgery on Wednesday, the press and public immediately launched into speculation about how his health would affect his run for president. Voters do have a right to know about the health of candidates, so candidates must honestly disclose information about conditions that might affect their abilities to perform their duties. However, voters should not rush to judgments and immediately eliminate a candidate because of health problems that can be dealt with.
Kerry handled the situation very well by announcing the surgery only one day prior. The public did not need to know any earlier, as the cancer had not noticeably affected Kerry’s ability to work. The announcement did not give the public time to fret about the surgery, so now they are already focused on news that Kerry will not need radiation and will be back to work next week.
Most likely, Kerry will turn out to be a textbook example of when health problems do not interfere with public office. Cancer affects so many people that it has lost most of its stigma, and prostate cancer specifically is extremely common among men. With Kerry’s honesty and seemingly successful surgery, it should not affect his job as a senator or his bid for the presidency. Actually, his encounter with prostate cancer gives him a valuable opportunity to increase awareness and funding for research. Based on his own experience, Kerry could lead a campaign to encourage men to get checked for prostate cancer while campaigning for president.
In the larger picture, the public often overreacts to announcements of candidates’ health problems. They do deserve to know about illnesses and conditions that might affect someone’s abilities to perform their job and, especially with important positions like the presidency, the public needs to know that the candidate will last another four years. However, almost everyone has some type of health problem, and elected officials can relate to people and better understand health issues through personal experience.
The media also need to ensure that they communicate relevant information without jumping to ridiculous conclusions or devoting more attention to health issues than they legitimately deserve. Candidates must follow Kerry’s example by disclosing information so the public can trust doctors’ opinions and honestly consider the impact of an illness or condition.
As Bush and the several Democratic contenders hit the campaign trail next year, health issues will undoubtedly re-enter the spotlight. Voters must put health conditions in perspective and acknowledge that perhaps first-hand knowledge of medical problems might give a president some impetus to actually tackle health care reform and not be a detriment to service of the country.