Friday, September 16, 2011

Politicians Pre-Election Health Disclosure

Today's poll question; if a politician finds out prior to an election that they have a high probability of dying before the end of their elected term, do voters have a right to know? If you've been listening to (or watching) the Charles Adler show lately, this is a conversation that the boss of talk has been having often. It began with a controversial piece titled Dead man campaigning, and the conversation has evolved. When prostate cancer spreads, it tends to spread to the bones in the hip or pelvis. Once that happens, the probability of survival plummets to 10%. So if Jack Layton's hip surgery prior to the election was related to his prostate cancer, then he would have been aware of his odds of survival prior to defeating the government and forcing the writ. If Jack was willing to risk his health for the best interests of the NDP, that is his decision. But if he ran for Prime Minister knowing that he was unlikely to be able to finish his term, do you have a problem with that?

I don't want to disrespect anyone currently suffering from cancer. One of my sisters was diagnosed with cancer this week. I would ask her if she's interested in running for public office, but I'm pretty sure I know what her answer would be...


  1. Iceman this is a fair question. If you were interviewing and the candidate mentioned that they were terminal, 10% chance of survival, would you hire them.?
    The NDP are from another planet, now they have "Saint Jack" patron of Community Shiatsu Centers.
    They are handing out buttons with the Late Jack Laytons profile that say "Do It For Jack"
    How bizzare, how bizarre.
    Jack was very good at just being Jack, looking after Jack was his priority.
    Media gave him a pass on his coalition coup attempt, and his way over the top expense account.
    To run up 1.2 million in expenses a year?
    This is besides their generous tax free salaries.
    Now we are hearing he was the best PM we never had?
    Let the Man rest in peace.
    If this is the best the NDP can do they are truely pathetic.IMO
    Cheers Bubba

  2. Yes I most certainly do have a problem with people running for public office when or if there's a high chance of their performance being adversly impacted be an undisclosed health issue.

    Not only are we(the public) looking at someone who is distracted from their day to day duties; unavailable due to treatment or just plain having 'down health' days...we are also dealing with someone whose mental accuity may be affected by the medications/treatments they are participating in at present.

    No; being in the throws of a serious illness is hardly the appropriate time to be steering or setting public policy at any level.

    Jack should not have run last Spring period. He was acting reckless and dishonest at worst...disingenuous at best.

    Jack however did have a massive ego and the road to potential glory, (should things play out well) was just too hard for Mr Layton to take a pass.

    Jack Layton now has a place right up there with Tommy Douglas....what finer a legacy could a Cdn Socialist hope for?

    A chicken in every pot...a street named Jack in every city.

  3. If the ndp had won the election, would Sept 19 see Nycole as interim PM. What a horrible thought. The ndp says it is electing a leader to be PM after the next election. What is that song, High Hopes. Will never happen.
    And if after the next election the ndp is back in 3rd place will this saviour resign.

  4. Layton's decidion to run regardless of his health is indicative of the Left's thirst for power at any cost. The Party knew full well that without their superstar they would have finished a poor third ,again.

    The Left/NDP/Greens have no moral foundation,unless you want to describe their worship of "diversity" as that, and THAT is the one good reason we must never let them have the reins of power in the Federal government.