Should Jack Layton have told Canadians about his medical condition before the spring election?
In July, just after the NDP leader announced he was suffering from "a new, non-prostate cancer," André Picard, The Globe and Mail's public health reporter, wrote that the public was owed "full disclosure" and that hiding the kind of cancer affecting Mr. Layton constituted "unacceptable fudging." Mr. Picard noted that, in those cases where prostate cancer metastasizes, "it tends to move to the bones – the pelvis and hips in particular." Then, he said, "the survival rate drops below 10 per cent."
In Quebec, no commentators dared tackle the issue as bluntly as Mr. Picard, at least in the mainstream media, although several observers noted that the prognosis didn't look good at all. At the time, what prevailed was compassion and hope that beloved "Jack" would quickly recover – an attitude that was akin to a form of denial. Now, though, emotions have given way to a critical view, as more and more people believe they should have known more before casting their vote.
This issue is particularly acute in Quebec, since most of those who voted for the NDP didn't vote for the party, let alone for its unknown and invisible local candidates. They voted for Jack Layton – a sharp contrast with the other provinces, where the New Democrats have roots and long-time followers. The personality of the leader didn't matter as much as it did in Quebec.
Last week, La Presse columnist Patrick Lagacé didn't mince words: "Mr. Layton ran for the highest office knowing that the crab was gnawing at his bones. We should have been told. This would have changed the vote of thousands of people, that's clear. And it's someone who voted for the NDP who's telling you this."
Did Mr. Layton know about his "second cancer" before the election campaign? In March, he began to suffer hip pain. Tests showed he had a fracture and required surgery. Was this due to bone cancer?
Last week, Olivia Chow, Mr. Layton's widow, told the CBC that she didn't want to reveal what type of cancer killed her husband because it might "discourage" other cancer sufferers. This is preposterous. Cancer patients are not stupid. They know that there are as many cases as there are individuals, and that some of them will survive and some of them will die. Why treat them like children incapable of making a distinction between Mr. Layton's fate and their own?
I can understand why Mr. Layton did not acknowledge his condition at the outset of the election campaign. He would have had to resign, thereby throwing his party in disarray. And for him, campaigning was certainly the best therapy he could have. Indeed, for a while, the flow of adrenalin trumped the disease. Still, his story should come as a lesson.
Maybe, as Mr. Picard concluded, it's time for Canadian politicians to adopt the rules that prevail in the United States, where health records must be disclosed.
When Franklin Roosevelt attended the Yalta Conference in February of 1945 to decide the fate of Europe, he was described as a dying man (and did so two months later, of a cerebral hemorrhage). French president François Mitterrand was a dying man during the last two years of his second mandate, and his doctors blatantly lied to the public about his condition (he had prostate cancer).
In the 21st century, shouldn't transparency be required from those running for the highest offices in the land?
Lysiane Gagnon