Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Prurience, privacy & scatology

We have, on both sides of the Atlantic, been subjected recently to acres of newsprint & comment about the private lives of the great, the good & the not so good.

Hugo Rifkind wrote a witty column about it in The Times last Friday (no link, since it’s behind the pay wall) which ended:
It’s not the State that wants to peer into our lives. It’s all of us wanting to peer into the lives of each other. Whether we admit it or not.
having earlier claimed that that is the way the world is going – no secrets anymore.

Well I beg to differ. As yet another report last week on how we are ruining our children pointed out (as if we didn’t know), we live in a highly sexualized society.

There are limits to what we claim a right to know. We are prurient, but not at all scatological, for example, unlike those who revered the Gillray cartoons (though Peter Brookes does his best sometimes).

Not so long ago a report in the BMJ told us that a surprisingly large proportion of medical professionals (including doctors) are too embarrassed to discuss such subjects with their patients.

Guts & bowels can seriously affect behavior. I personally have been convinced for years (on the basis purely of his public behavior) that one senior politician gets himself into scrapes because of dyspepsia, though I do not think any journalist would think it their duty to inform the public on the truth or otherwise of this speculation.

And, although it is a close run thing, we generally are fairly respectful of someone’s right to privacy about their physical health – unless it’s cancer when we like to know so that we can admire their bravery in battle.