[IMRA: It would be naive to think that the same "ends justify the means"
folks who decided to conceal the truth about PM Sharon's health are not
today concealing crucial information on other matters that might interfere
with a Kadima victory on election day.]

Partial concealment By Haaretz Editorial 17 January 2006

Most of the questions raised about the quality of treatment given to Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon are essentially medical, but beyond that, there are
other questions of public concern. Who, for example, decided to conceal from
the public the truth about the blood vessel disease diagnosed after Sharon's
first stroke? And did doctors issue the partial medical report in good
faith, or in consultation with Sharon and his advisers?

There is no doubt that the doctors who treated Sharon, both his personal
physicians and Hadassah's doctors, are obliged by law to maintain medical
confidentiality regarding the patient's condition, unless he explicitly
permitted them to share the information with others. The patient's bill of
rights does not distinguish between an ordinary citizen and a public figure,
and if Sharon decided to hide from the public his blood vessel disease, one
cannot expect the doctors to betray his trust.

However, Sharon's doctors, including the director of Hadassah Hospital, gave
the misleading impression that they were giving the public a full and
detailed report, sometimes too detailed, while in fact they were concealing
the cerebral amyloid angiopathy, which had been discovered during the first
hospitalization. This disease is characterized by buildup of protein
deposits in the vessel walls, causing the blood vessels to crack and
increases the risk of bleeding. The existence of such deposits characterizes
Alzheimer's disease. This information is relevant to the question, whether
the prime minister is capable of dealing with another term in office. This
information might or might not have influenced the voters. Had the doctors
kept silent, leaving the family and Prime Minister's Office to do the
reporting, nobody could have complained. However, the doctors tried to
simultaneously give and withhold information.

On December 26, eight days after Sharon's first hospitalization, his doctors
held a news conference at which they appeared to provide the entire medical
findings. Professor Bolek Goldman said at the time that "with the prime
minister's consent, we are at your disposal to provide full disclosure of
the prime minister's condition following his hospitalization."

The doctors told the journalists not only of the cerebral event, but also of
the gout disease ailing the prime minister, his hypoactive thyroid gland,
and even passing ailments like his backaches. The briefing gave the false
impression that nothing had been withheld. In fact, they concealed the very
information that could have cast a shadow on the prime minister's capacity.

After the first hospitalization, Sharon would have done the right thing by
voluntarily waiving medical confidentiality and allowing the doctors to
report the whole truth. This applies to any senior public official who
suffers a serious disease. The doctors on their part should not have
cooperated with the selective reporting, as they are not supposed to be part
of the prime minister's public relations team. They could have chosen one of
two possibilities: either to avoid reporting to the public altogether, or to
disclose the whole truth.