There is still reverberation about whether Andrew Marr was right to ask Gordon Brown “THAT question” about prescription painkillers. I don’t think he was.
This is not, as Guido suggests, a double-standard. The question of whether David Cameron took drugs at university at least has the different quality of being related to law-breaking. Nonetheless, it does little to serve the public interest to ask either of these questions.
The stigma attached to mental health issues in Britain is staggering. One need look no further than the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter to see the prejudice still alive. People with depression and other psychiatric illnesses face prejudices that bear little resemblance to the realities of their conditions.
In asking the Prime Minister that question, Marr continued to propagate a series of stereotypes about mental health. Properly prescribed and used, anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication can allow patients to live normal lives. By asking the question, he ensured the rumour gained more publicity and apparent credibility, in the manner of a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. This is straight out of the Damian McBride playbook. The implication of the question was that all users of anti-depressants are perforce unfit for public office, ignoring the contributions of the bipolar Winston Churchill and depressive former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik.
Use of MAOI anti-depressants is essentially a private matter and may only be of public interest if there is clear evidence that their use seriously impairs the conduct of a public official. At best the evidence is tenuous that Brown is on anti-depressants, and even more flimsy that these have an impact on his behaviour where it matters. Yes, Brown may have depression, yes, he may be taking MAOIs, yes, he may be unfit to govern as a result. But quite equally he may not. We simply do not have the evidence to suggest that he is. Given the cultural hostility to mental illness in this country, he should therefore have been given the benefit of the doubt. It may be frustrating, but it is vastly preferable to a society where accusation automatically assumes guilt.
Follow on Facebook
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Benjamin,
You say- “Yes, Brown may have depression, yes, he may be taking MAOIs, yes, he may be unfit to govern as a result. But quite equally he may not. We simply do not have the evidence to suggest that he is.”
However, if the truth has not been verified one way or another, how on earth WOULD we know? I think it is something that it is in the public interest to know; and similiarly I thik it was right of Marr to have asked it out-right. Otherwise, the ‘gossip’ circulating round the internet may well have gone on…and on…causing more ‘damage’ to the PM then giving him the ability to give an ‘offical statement’.
I do however think it was wrong for Marr to ask at such a time, and given his own desire to keep personal information hidden!
On a jovial note,
“Use of MAOI anti-depressants is essentially a private matter and may only be of public interest if there is clear evidence that their use seriously impairs the conduct of a public official.”
- Have you been paying any freakin’ attention to Gordz for the last 12 years?!
(evidently I work hard at the ASI)
For every true story there are dozens of rumours floating round with very little evidence supporting them. When a mainstream journalist turns it into a question, it gains credibility regardless of merit. Brown’s denial won’t do anything to dispel the myths, as “he would say that wouldn’t he”. All it does is circulate an unfair rumour further. If it were a case of dispelling rumours, Number 10 could have done it in all manner of other ways than on Marr’s show, where it became a dominant news story.