Newfoundland and Labrador’s Premier Danny Williams is recovering from heart surgery he received in the United States last week, and is expected to return to work in early March.
The fact he elected to have heart surgery in the U.S. opened up a storm of criticism, and also support.
What does it say about the state of Canada’s health care system that Williams decided to go south and pay for the surgery? This is what the critics ask. Many health experts have testified to the fact there are few heart surgeries that can't be performed in Canada.
What the premier does in regard to his health is none of our business, the supporters say.
Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale said it is “absolutely unacceptable” how Williams' choice of care has exposed him to a “battery” of ill-informed opinion.
“We forgo a lot of privacy when we put our hands up to do this job, but there still are parameters,” she said.
The premier would publicly explain why he chose the treatment he did “when he’s well enough to do it,” Dunderdale said.
What Dunderdale didn’t seem to realize is exactly everything she said points to why there has been such a storm of reaction.
It’s possible it could have all been avoided if Williams explained why he had decided to go to the States for the surgery before he went.
One day he was in Canada, the next in the States, and an announcement was issued that he was having heart surgery.
It’s this mode of exit that suggests Williams knew the kind of criticism he would face.
Again, if he knew that, why didn’t he simply say why he was going? Canadians can be an understanding lot.
Dunderdale argues that politicians give up a measure of privacy when they are elected, but there is a limit.
However, Williams is at the top of the elected ladder. He’s the premier of a province, and thus his actions take on a symbolic level of significance.
He is inexorably linked to Canadian public institutions, such as our free health-care system, which is funded by the tax dollars of those he governs.
If he’s been subject to a battery of ill-informed opinion, as Dunderdale says, it’s because the public is exactly that — ill-informed.
The remedy for that would have been more information than the public has now.
