Dear Editor,
I have read the comments attributed to Mr Khemraj Ramjattan in the KN on May 18, 2009 entitled ‘AFC wants more information on Corbin’s medical expenses.’
I will state categorically that I personally have no objection to ‘freedom of information’ as regards public expenses, and specifically no objection to the cost of medical treatment for Mr Corbin being disclosed when it becomes available. In fact, I wish Mr Ramjattan was as strong a proponent of this issue when he was a member of the PPP and will maintain this view should he ever ascend to higher public office. Mr Ramjattan, however, with his new penchant for Freedom of Information and its application to the cost of medical treatment at taxpayers’ expense, should apply an equitable principle and call for the entire list of beneficiaries that Dr Luncheon announced had been treated similarly in the past.
My main objection is to Mr Ramjattan’s alleged statements which were reported as follows, “there must be a balance but he feels that it must weigh in favour of taxpayers who have a right to know what specifically Corbin was treated for. Ramjattan pointed out that the populace must also be informed as to what condition the Opposition Leader is in and if he will require ongoing treatment at the expense of the state…’To date, there has been nothing conclusive about Corbin’s ailment….Taxpayers must know.’”
I am sure that Mr Ramjattan is aware that lawyer/client confidentiality applies equally to a doctor/patient. These duties of confidentiality should be paramount, with limited exceptions. The public disclosure of this information is purely at the client/patient’s discretion. I strongly disagree that the right to privacy of medical records is outweighed by pure curiosity or in Guyanese parlance ‘fastness’.
If Mr Ramjattan was genuinely interested in Mr Corbin’s general well-being he could have done what many others have done – simply communicated directly with the leadership of the PNC or Mr Corbin’s family.
Knowing how much was spent and in general terms what it is spent on is far different from asking for details of an ailment and condition. I find Mr Ramjattan’s statements and the conduct of some reporters disgraceful and uncouth in their constant hounding for details of the medical condition of Mr Corbin. While in some cases the lines between what is private and what should be public in the lives of public figures are often crossed, I am sure that the law and most civilised persons would agree that disclosure of anyone’s medical records falls under privacy laws.
Yours faithfully,
Fidela Corbin
