On 21 August 1956, Eden woke with severe pain, needing pethidine, and in October had a febrile episode of 106° Fahrenheit and spent three nights in University College Hospital. His periodic fevers continued with increasing exhaustion. Meanwhile, Eden continued his plans to attack Egypt. Fighting began on 31 October. On 19 November, Evans ordered complete rest in a warm climate. Eden flew to Jamaica on 23 November. He returned on 14 December, only to have recurrent fevers at Christmas. On New Year's Day 1957, Evans told Eden and his wife that his illness would disable him from continuing as Prime Minister. On 7 January, Evans brought in Sir Gordon Gordon-Taylor (who had taught me surgery at the Middlesex) and Dr Thomas Hunt, both of whom firmly confirmed Evans's advice. They all signed the inevitable bulletin: "The Prime Minister's health gives cause for anxiety. In spite of the improvement which followed his rest before Christmas, there has been a recurrence of abdominal symptoms. This gives us much concern because of the serious operations in 1953 and some subsequent attacks of fever. In our opinion, his health will no longer enable him to sustain the heavy burdens inseparable from the office of Prime Minister."

Eden resigned the next day. Ennobled as Earl of Avon, he lived for another 20 years, in variable ill-health with periodic fevers, and needed a further major operation in Boston in 1970. 

There has been considerable debate over how much of Eden's Suez disaster could be attributed to his illnesses and his prescribed medication, especially barbiturates, as well as hypnotics and stimulants for his depression. Amphetamines had been used in this way from the 1930s, and in the 1950s were still the only available antidepressant. Many of those who knew him well, including his doctors, doubt this hypothesis. Tommy Hunt's considered opinion was that Eden would not have acted very differently in the Suez crisis if he had been in robust health. 

I am not a political historian, I am a physician, but in both London and New York I have been involved in teaching bioethics. I pose eight questions, bearing in mind that I knew or met all the British doctors I named.

(1) Churchill replaced Hunt by Wilson as his medical adviser because Hunt refused to cancel another patient's appointment to fit in Churchill.

Should a doctor allow a VIP to dislodge an ordinary citizen? And if Hunt had been Churchill's physician, would he have acted differently?