A few days ago now, the Washington Post featured a post from a blogger by the name of John Ward, who claimed to have information from an anonymous source which threw new light on the Prime Minister’s health. At the end of the post he requested help in publicising his post to enable debate to be held on the matter.
Over the last few days, John Ward’s post has occasioned heated debate. As the author on Old Holborn’s site who originally posted his article, I feel I should reply to some of those comments, and the secondary articles which the matter has prompted.
I worked in the mental health field for many years, and I promise you there is no one who has more compassion for the mentally ill than I. I do not believe that any individual should be castigated either for the condition of their mental health, or more importantly, for seeking help or undergoing treatment.
Nothing has pained me more over the past few days than to see the number of comments which have started ‘I suffer from depression’ and then go on to say that no one should be ‘forced to suffer unemployment’ by virtue of having sought help for their mental health. I agree with those views, no one should be fired because they have sought help for their mental health. That doesn’t mean that they are still fit to do the job they were hired for. If someone is not fit to do the job they were hired for they should be retired on the grounds of ill health, or better still, they should retire themselves.
If a fireman loses a leg, I have unending compassion for him, especially if he had lost it in the course of his job, but if I find myself on the top floor of a blazing house, I want an agile and nimble fireman to zip up a ladder and haul me out – not someone I have unending compassion for. Ditto goes for a policeman in a wheelchair, or a pilot who has lost his sight. In other words, there are some jobs that are larger than the rights of the individual who happens to hold them at the time of his misfortune.
When we say ‘the Prime Minister’s health’ we are not talking about an individual, we are talking about an officer of the State, the highest officer of the State. We are talking about an individual with his finger on the nuclear button, with the exceptional right to dictate that young men and women go to war on our behalf, with the exceptional right to decide how our economy is run.
In the case of the present office holder, there is the difficulty that apparently none of his colleagues possess the technical ability to remove him from office before the next general election regardless of whether he is fit for the office or not. That cannot be right. Can you imagine the uproar if it was found, per my analogy, that the only fire service you could rely upon consisted of one legged men who couldn’t be removed from their jobs pending some fictitious date in the future? Would we be working ourselves into a lather as to whether it was ‘right to discuss the matter’?
That all being so, I was glad to see the Devil’s post this morning, particularly glad as it happens, for the essential ingredient of debate is both sides of the controversy. John Ward’s article was based on anonymous sources, so is the Devil’s. Good. Evenly matched then.
Iain Dale has waded into the fray, quite bravely I think, since he took for himself the advantage of seeing which way the wind was blowing as to whether this matter should be aired, before committing himself – and still went ahead! I cannot but agree with his conclusion, that if the ‘Prime Minister is indeed suffering in this way he deserves our compassion, not insults’.
Not only do we need to separate the individual from the office of State when deciding whether to debate his health or not, but we need to separate the individual suffering from a disturbance of the mind from the consequences of his actions. I blogged earlier this month on the dangers of demonising dementia. I have seen a large number of comments over the past few days claiming that Brown’s crimes against this country are so serious that he is not deserving of either compassion, or, in the more extreme cases, of any chance of dying peacefully in his bed.
I can only say that if it proves to be the case that his ‘crimes against the country’ have occurred as a result of a deteriorating mental condition, then he has my compassion – but I want him well out of the office.
If it proves to be that he is in full command of his faculties and the stories alleging otherwise are groundless, then I will settle for the lamp post and a length of rope.
Out of office either way, and can we please have a discussion on how it is possible for an unelected leader to be impossible to remove from office? Didn’t we used to do something called Democracy in the good old days? Time to bring it back?
SBML is the landlord of the Raccoon Arms. He lives North of Watford and has an eclictic range of interests from Science and Technology to Politics including Woodwork and Genealogy. His political viewpoint has evolved from being a student demonstrator to more liberal views and has now seen the light in Libertarianism.
{ 14 comments }
Great post Anna.
Excellent response, covers all the bases – that said, I still think Gordon is the wrong man in the wrong job.
finger on the nuclear button , i think not ,according to wedgewood ben,the americans control the guidance system, so we just pay for their missiles
The difficulty with much of what is said about the PM is that some medication has noticeable side effects, and can deflect attention from what is the basic condition. The PM would not be the first person, or the first PM, to have had difficulties arising from inappropriate medical treatment. I am old enough to have seen a lot of dementia, of different kinds, and depression, and I am not at all sure that they lie in these fields. Given the alleged list of dietary requirements, it might very well be that there is something else going on that has either not been considered or fully recognised. It or they is or are issues that are known but very often missed. Just how good has the PM’s testing and checking been?
Brown has NEVER been mentally suitable for high office. He messed up the Chancellor’s post and is ruinous as PM. Only a little while now before he is out of politics for good.
He may not be clinically depressed, but I think he’s made a pigs ear of the economy. Quite honestly, I can’t stand the man and I can understand why people will plunge to such depths to overthrow him. He really does not seem to “get it”… the majority of the electorate want him gone.. and he’s hanging on for dear life.
He should call an election and give in gracefully….
Maybe he is so far removed from reality with his band of yesmen around him that he actually doesnt realise how fed up the electorate are. Maybe the gates at No 10 are an ivory tower in disguise.
Someone needs to ask him for bread and see whether he says Let them eat cake?
Lets hope that in one of his legendary mood swings, he does lobbed the Nuke Detonator, he may have the battle of all battles going on in his head, but another round of wars in the real world we can do without.
does lobbed = doesn’t lob – doh – makes me want to kick the dog
“I cannot but agree with his conclusion, that if the
Good point Ollie, timing is everything with a man.
Very well said. I eventually gave up my job as a psychiatric nurse because my manic depression affected my ability to do it well, and work in an office now. Whatever the causes of Brown’s dismal performance, we can’t be sidetracked from judging his party from that performance as opposed to anything else.
I blogged about this before:
http://delphiusdebate.blogspot.com/2009/09/mainstream-media-what-exactly-is-it.html#comments
There are several questions raised by this story if true:
The first part around the PMs ability to remain in office and whether the political establishment are willing and able constitutionally to remove him should the need arise.
The second part is the refusal of the Mainstream media to persue the story. Hopefully they are beginning to awake…
Delphius,
I believe the BBC has subtley alluded to the matter today – game over I’d say.