You are here:   Text > Should We Know About our Leaders' Health?
 

 
Moran: Churchill's personal physician 

Ordinarily, Churchill should have resigned, as his wife wished, and the Queen sent for Eden. However, that day Eden was being operated on in Boston. It was held to be unfair to Eden if Butler was appointed PM. Butler could have asserted himself, but as on two later occasions when he might have claimed the post, he loyally held back. There was no way a peer, such as Lord Salisbury, could have been made a caretaker
premier, so a conspiracy was hatched.

The first problem was the bulletin. Moran had prepared, and he and Brain signed, a tactful but honest bulletin: "For a long time, the Prime Minister has had no respite from his arduous duties and a disturbance of the cerebral circulation has developed, resulting in attacks of giddiness. We have therefore advised him to abandon his journey to Bermuda and to take at least a month's rest." 

Butler and Salisbury vetoed this because medical correspondents would correctly tell the public that their PM had suffered a stroke. When King George VI had his chest operation, a bulletin talked loosely about "structural changes in the lung", and while doctors assumed correctly that this meant cancer, this was not widely discussed in the press. 

One of the few truthful royal bulletins, and certainly the most eloquent, was Lord Dawson of Penn's on George V, stating: "The King's life is moving peacefully towards its close." 

This sentence, written on a Sandringham menu card, was much appreciated throughout the Commonwealth. In Edward VIII's sole Birthday Honours, Dawson was elevated to a Viscount. Dawson's words were also truthful because 150 minutes after he wrote them, he killed the King with an injection of heroin.

Butler and Salisbury therefore prepared their own bulletin, which the two physicians agreed to sign: "The Prime Minister has had no respite for a long time from his very arduous duties and is in need of a complete rest. We have therefore advised him to abandon his journey to Bermuda and to lighten his duties for at least a month." 

Colville sent for the three press lords, Beaverbrook, Bracken and Camrose, who agreed to a total gag. Butler took the Cabinet and told them of Churchill's stroke, although this was not minuted, while the business of the state was conducted by Colville and Churchill's son-in-law, Christopher Soames. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anne Elborn
May 24th, 2012
10:05 PM
A very interesting article. Are you te Jeremy Baron I met at Alan Small's house in the early 50's@ I stillhave a book by Heine that you gave me

Dr Roderick Neilson
July 27th, 2011
10:07 PM
I think the post by 'anonymous' says more about him or her than it's content does. I worked for the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland for 5 years. The use of clinical records by MDOs in medical negligence and GMC cases is covered by legal privilege, not patient confidentiality. If a doctor is accused of negligence or serious professional misconduct they have a right in law to access to relevant clinical records to answer the case made against them. As for the allegation that MDOs, lawyers and courts falsify and distort records, that smacks of sour grapes and failed litigation by Anonymous rather than fact.

Anonymous
January 23rd, 2011
4:01 AM
If Dr Neilson above was an advisor to a medical defence oragnisation (MDO), then he would know what a joke patient confidentiality is. MDOs routinely instruct doctors, expert witnesses and lawyers through the MDO medico-legal advisors to collude, with deliberate deception, against medical malpractice patients by falsifying their medical records, tests and radiographs. The Spine helps with this abuse of privacy, as do all electronic computer medical records. This deception and abuse of process goes all the way from the MDOs to the prejudiced rulings of medical boards and court judges.

Dr Roderick Neilson
December 7th, 2009
7:12 PM
I write as a practising consultant and a previous medical adviser to a UK Medical Defence Organisation. If Dr Baron is to believed St Mary's Hospital Medical School teaches and practices lower standards in relation to patient confidentiality than the Scottish University I attended. It is a step too far to suggest that the chequered medical histories of past politicians, all of whom are conveniently dead and thus cannot complain, means the public has a right to know the medical histories of current or would be current ones. I have little sympathy for most politicians but the fact they are politicians does not mean they have a lesser right to medical confidentiality than ordinary people. Neither does it mean that the GMC's position on medical confidentiality does not apply to their doctors. I'm sorry but Dr Baron's view that different standards should apply as regards confidentiality when politicians are patients is unethical and intrusive. Dr Roderick Neilson Consultant Haematologist

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.