Privacy

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had an idiopathic seizure this week. During the seizure, he fell and sustained a mild head injury. News reports indicate this is not the first such episodes he has had.

The article I read goes on to quote Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center, who says that by definition, someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is determined to have epilepsy.

The article closes with attributing the following conclusion to Dr. Schlosberg.
Whether Roberts will need anti-seizure medications to prevent another incident is something he and his doctor will have to decide.

Good thing he's got that right, you know the one where he and his doctor privately decide what medical treatment is best for him without interference by anyone else (i.e., anyone like the parent or guardian of a minor or the state...). Couldn't one make at least a superficially compelling case that the treatment of such high governmental officials are a matter of genuine public concern and interest? Shouldn't we consider that potential impairments, whether immediate or long term, of the official's physical or mental acuity as a result of this condition or of the treatment of the condition could quite directly affect the official's ability to function at a level and manner necessary for the successful execution of the office?

Rhetorical questions largely. Here's another.

Why should the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court have MORE rights and BETTER rights than any old Jane Roe?

For some informative and creepy reading about current and recent US Supreme Courts' interpretations of the scope and expectation of women's rights to privacy in medical decisions, see Gonzales v. Carhart