My first reaction to the Andrew Marr/Gordon Brown health question debate was "well I am sure a journalist like that wouldn't post a question unless he had pretty much confirmed the source of his information".
Now it seems the source was an internet rumour - not smart journalism at all.
But putting the journalistic issues aside, what depths are we sinking to if we think it's OK for this sort of questioning to go on.
I have no idea whether Gordon Brown does or doesn't use prescription painkillers or anti depressants.
But if he does, so what?
Huge numbers of people have conditions (either temporary or permanent) that they manage with medication. Diabetics spring to mind.
Are we saying that any of these people are not fit to hold particular jobs?
Or are we saying , which I suspect is what some of those who have liked this form of questioning want, that certain illnesses are OK and others are not. Certain illnesses are morally acceptable and others are suspect.
Don't get me wrong, I think Gordon Brown is a rubbish prime minister but that is nothing to do with whether or not he takes tablets.
And I think Andrew Marr finds himself on the wrong side of the line on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment