Should ill politicians step down?

southsiderosie

Right now, there is a bit of controversy in the US because a congressman disappeared a few weeks ago due to undisclosed medical issues. Now that the US Congress is in recess, it has come out that he is dealing with bipolar disorder. Since the elections are in November, many people, including some of his constituents, have urged him to step down so the district can have full representation in Congress. [The Congressman is also involved in a lot of messy political scandals, but the main point here is that he is currently on medical leave].

When Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, she didn't step down until a year later. Senator Mark Kirk had a stroke two years ago, and never stepped down - apparently no US Senator has ever resigned over health issues, even when they had to literally be wheeled into the chamber to take a floor vote.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, **** happens: people get sick, pregnant, have accidents, etc, and that is what medical leave is for. Plus most legislative offices can manage pretty well without the actual legislator. But at what point should politicians say that it is time to formally resign? If they are out for than 6 weeks? Three months? If their prognosis is uncertain?

So my question for the forum is: if a politician has to take medical leave for an extended period of time, should they step down?

If you think yes, why? If no, do you think there should be some kind of statutory cut-off point - say six months - where if they can't fulfill their duties that it becomes mandatory to resign? Are there some medical situations where people should get more leeway - for example, Giffords was shot while engaged in constituent services, so should her 'in the line of duty' illness entitle her to more leeway that, say, a random heart attack?

At what point do the interests of constituents to have active representation trump the right of an elected official to take medical leave? I'm inclined to say that this should be left up to constituents - if they are ok with the situation, they will re-elect their representative - but obviously this becomes more problematic when it is an executive, rather than a legislator (like Chavez for example), or when the terms are quite long (6 years in the Senate; up to five years in Ireland if the government holds). But to be quite honest, I really am not sure how I feel about this. I'm curious to get other peoples' take.

onemorechance

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :rolleyes:

expectationlost

i get the impression that he was self medicating shall we say.

i tend towards the yes answer on this, we first have to deal with the issue of illnesses being revealed at all, thinks its different in the US there much more expectation of illnesses being revealed, unlike here, i think its connected to politcal dynastys, whether they be directly nepotistic, or the favoured candidate of ill political can follow on.

alot of the times politicians will say sure it was well known i was sick , when really it isn't locally or national, there not that honest with their constituents.

Fenian Army

Take Lenihan, at one of the most important times in recent Irish history one of the most important ministers was going around impaired by drugs.

Should he have stepped down? Of course.

southsiderosie

Fenian Army wrote: »

Take Lenihan, at one of the most important times in recent Irish history one of the most important ministers was going around impaired by drugs.

Should he have stepped down? Of course.

Oh I forgot about Lenihan...yes, that's a biggie. I guess he could have stepped down for the 2011 national election, if for no other reason to spend more time with his family. I don't think that the Irish system is as rigid as the American system - quite a few TDs go in and out of the Dail - so if his health improved he probably could have been re-elected later.

But I can also understand the impulse to keep working - at least it provides a sense of normalcy for a person dealing with a serious illness. My mom worked through cancer treatment, and I think it was a relief for her to feel like she had something in her life that she had some control over at the time. But this brings us back to the question of the individual interest versus the public interest.

jimmycrackcorm

Fenian Army wrote: »

Take Lenihan, at one of the most important times in recent Irish history one of the most important ministers was going around impaired by drugs.

Should he have stepped down? Of course.

I think you are simply speculating on a link between ability to undertake your duties and medication being taken. Eg. If someone is on anti-depressants should they be required to give up their job?

Manach

Being unwell and having to cope with the stresses of illness is unfortunate. Some people though have learn to cope with this adversary and emerge stronger, more compassionate. In the case of politicians, the example would be Franklin Roosevelt who was confined to a wheelchair for part of his presidential term, yet managed to oversea the arsenal of democracy that was the USA. As for mental illness, Winston Churchill who suffered from depression is an example.
So, I'd not favour disbarring ill politicians.