Despite the very public and unambiguous split from Great Britain in 1776, Americans, or at least the American press, is ever receptive to news from or about the British royal family. The most recent press releases concerned the health of the current King and of his daughter-in-law. Charles (aka, the King of Egland, Wales, etc.) had prostate surgery, and Kate (aka, the Princess of Wales) had “planned” abdominal surgery. The King’s press liaison assured the public that ‘His Majesty’ did not have cancer. The Princess’s public relations contingent indicated that Ms. Middleton would be hospitalized for about two weeks and the press should respect her privacy. She did not want to disclose what the problem was, and her public relations people discouraged speculation.
That the British Royal family does not have a ‘right to privacy’ was established a few centuries ago when their activities had consequences for much of the world. Although the empire it ruled over has largely disintegrated, the family still enjoys wealth and privileges that deserve more attention and less privacy.
In the United States, we are exceedingly intrusive when it comes to the disclosure of personal information collected from welfare recipients. Whereas the British royal family is probably the beneficiary of the most generous public welfare support in the world, one might expect an attention to and transparency regarding the activities, associations, and work histories of the members of this select group exceeding that accorded less well-subsidized individuals. Paradoxically, the reverse is true. The ‘Royals’ are shielded from public scrutiny by an army of public relations firms, as well as ancient laws that immunize them from prosecution for what most would otherwise consider illegal activities. In the Twentieth Century, the then Prince of Wales was unabashedly supportive of the Nazi government that threatened the independence of Great Britain and (not clandestinely) traded in German currency during World War II in violation of British laws that he felt did not apply to him.
In an effort to shed light on the recent medical disclosures concerning the King and the Princess, allow me to explain and speculate.
The King’s press corps advised the public that he had prostate surgery but did not have prostate cancer. The prostate is a gland in men that is slightly larger than an almond. This gland surrounds the tube [urethra] that connects the bladder to the penis. It produces fluid that joins with sperm when a man ejaculates, thereby facilitating fertilization of the egg in a women when the man has an orgasm during sexual intercourse. This much detail may be unnecessary information for many Americans, but we live in an era when books discussing sex, other than the Judeo-Christian Bible, are being banned in libraries across our nation.
The surgery to remove His Majesty’s prostate was probably necessitated by his having problems emptying urine from his bladder. As men age, the prostate may get larger and impinge on the urethra. This enlargement [hypertrophy] chokes off the urethra and makes it increasingly more difficult to fully empty the bladder. The affected man will need to urinate more than a few times daily and routinely needs to get up at night to pee. Removing the prostate relieves this blockage, but surgical removal of the gland may have a variety of undesirable consequences. These include loss of bladder control and of sexual potency. The affected individual may wet his pants and be unable to have sexual intercourse. If Charles has these postoperative problems, we are unlikely to hear any mention of them in future press releases.
Princess Kate released just enough information concerning her hospitalization to make further details of her medical problem and treatments priceless. The appeals to ‘respect her privacy’ are like raw meat thrown to starving dogs. The British press will not rest until every hospital orderly has been bribed and every hospital computer has been hacked. The unavoidable questions are,”Why the secrecy?” and “Why so many estimated days in the hospital?”
Kate is in her forties and therefore is at risk for uterine fibroids. These benign growths on the uterus often cause pain and bleeding, but their management usually requires no more than a day in the hospital. Many other abdominal procedures, such as removal of a gall bladder or a hernia repair, can be performed on an out-patient basis. A pelvic abscess developing with an infection in the lower abdomen might be expected to require surgery and a lengthy course of post-operative antibiotics, but any such diagnosis would incite rumors of misbehavior on the part of her husband, Prince William. No one intent upon a long and happy life would list so scandalous a diagnosis in the medical record. No matter what is ultimately released or revealed concerning Kate’s hospitalization, we should not expect candor or clarity.
The rich and powerful expect special treatment and get it. Franklin Roosevelt could not walk. The press corps agreed not to photograph him in his wheelchair. Richard Nixon drank to excess as his presidency unraveled. Henry Kissinger made excuses for why the President was ‘unavailable.’ John Kennedy had Addison’s disease, a potentially lethal failure of the adrenal glands to make steroids. His illness was not publicized. Grover Cleveland had surgery on his palate to remove a potentially cancerous tumor. The procedure would not have been revealed if it were not that one of the doctors involved in the secret operation was hounded by his colleagues to reveal why he had not shown up for another commitment. Woodrow Wilson was fully disabled by a stroke, and his wife apparently decided which laws the President would ‘sign.’ The list of Presidential secrets and obfuscations extend back to the Declaration of Independence and rival those of the British monarchy in terms of their variety and salaciousness. We all have a ‘right to privacy,’ but God and Google know that few of us commoners are afforded that privacy.
Dr. Lechtenberg is an Easton resident who graduated from Tufts University and Tufts Medical School in Massachusetts and subsequently trained at The Mount Sinai Hospital and Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in Manhattan. He worked as a neurologist at several New York Hospitals, including Kings County and The Long Island College Hospital, while maintaining a private practice, teaching at SUNY Downstate Medical School, and publishing 15 books on a variety of medical topics. He worked in drug development in the U.S., as well as in England, Germany, and France.
