There are a lot of similarities worldwide regarding politician’s behavior. This time I’d like to digress on the incredible recurrence of cancer diagnostics in so many LA presidents around the same time: Paraguay, Venezuela, Brazil (former) and Argentina current presidents had or are in the middle of some sort of cancer treatment.
Those news became public after those individuals assumed office. Had those news been made known at the time of their electoral campaigns and in a setting similar to those of the USA, most if not all of them would have not become presidents.
Cancer is a painful and long illness, most of the times it takes years of fighting it and the use of radio and/or chemotherapy are diagnosed and treated over some period of time. In the case of those presidents, it wasn’t not long time since the Paraguayan president had lost his hair to the treatment, the former Brazilian president was portrayed similarly, and Venezuelan did not wait long to show himself in the same situation.
My point is that those treatments should have happened while they were still in office or in campaign like the one from Paraguay. In other words, they knew they were ill and still did not tell their countrymen that they were undergoing such illness. This can be and is a serious moral dilemma indeed. I don’t want to be misunderstood and do not want to trivialize the cancer either.
Just because of the latter, I believe, using the same American logic: any politician should report to his constituents about all issues pertaining to his life. The American way of doing politics has shown to the world an abundance of examples from early days in the candidate’s lifestyles and that has caused in many politician careers to a sudden stop and practically “political death”
A candidate or a person in such a high position should take immediate decisions to abandon public life so that the country is not affected. In Bolivia we had that example with Hugo Banzer who resigned office due to his illness. Many would say it is good that the Paraguayan president is fighting his illness and is still in office, kudos and respect to him as a person, kudos for Banzer as well. However, on both cases the public was aware of those illnesses.
But what to do if a person is diagnosed while in office, re-election or election times? Is it ethical to do so without letting the citizens of their countries know about it? I mention American way of doing politics, because it is public news. It is either the media, the opposition candidates inside or outside their political parties who do research not only of the health (mental and physical) but also on their finances, ethics, etc., of their opponents and once it is public, the candidate has to make a decision.
I only say about those Latin American candidates or presidents, they would have not become or being able to hold office, had they been politicians in the USA.