“My Son Beau is Fine.” I’m sorry, I need more than that.
So last Thursday, upon the Vice President returning home to Delaware with his son, the Attorney General, Beau Biden, the White House released a statement on his behalf, stating as follows:
Yesterday our son Beau underwent a successful procedure. He is in great shape and is going to be discharged [Thursday] and heading home to Delaware. He will follow up with his local physicians in the coming weeks.
I said at the time that I thought, based on earlier reporting, that this successful procedure was in fact the biopsy of the mass in Beau’s brain, and thus until we hear the results, this health crisis for the junior Biden was not concluded. Commenter Puck disagreed, saying:
It’s possible the “successful procedure” was in fact the treatment. There are minimally invasive radiosurgery procedures that could have been done in that timespan in Texas, and conceivably would have constituted full treatment. It’s also possible there is no issue of cancer, but rather some type of abnormal cluster of blood vessels which might require the same kind of treatment. I know this is just speculation, but I’m willing to indulge a little.
Puck might be right. It would explain the very vague yet optimistic statement from the Vice President above and his statements on Friday in Scranton, PA:
“And I just want you all to know, since so many of you have asked me about my son, things are – it’s not only good to be here, but things are good at home in Delaware. My son Beau is fine,” he said, eliciting applause and cheers from a crowd of approximately 2,500 in the Lackawanna College student union.
The problem with these vague statements and no further comment is that Beau’s recent medical crisis and his overall medical state remains unclear at best. I’m sorry, but you don’t travel from Indiana to Chicago and then to Philly and then to the best cancer center in the country in Houston for a minor issue. Even if you are the Vice President’s son. And the Vice President does not cancel nearly his entire weekly schedule to go to Houston to sit at his son’s bedside if this were a minor issue.
Some will say that we have no right to know the details of Beau’s medical history and the specific details of this latest illness. I generally agree that medical privacy is important. With some specific exceptions, and those exceptions involve life threatening conditions and illnesses, such as cancer, heart conditions and anything involving the brain. And that is what we have here.
Let’s assume that the situation is as Puck suggests and Beau’s procedure resolved whatever issue there was. I want to know what that issue is. And yes, I have a right to know what that issue is. Yes, Beau Biden is not his father, and he has taken a much more reserved approach to politics than his father did or does. Still, he is a public figure. Not only that, he is the chief law enforcement official for our state. An official who is the subject of glowing personal profiles about how the Biden family stands up for each other. In my mind, you can’t be a public official, and in fact trade on what would normally be private (you your family’s personal story), and have a personal history and a family history of medical issues involving the brain, and demand privacy concerning your medical issues you are having.
I’m sorry, but in this case, medical privacy does not apply. It is not enough to say Beau had a successful procedure and that now he is fine. What was his condition? What was the condition that the procedure corrected? Two simple questions. We need and have a right to know what the answer to it.
Tags: Featured
I agree. More information is warranted.
Unless it it effects his job, we do not need to know.
Well, since it was his brain, not his big toe, it affects his job.
The single thing that makes me wonder if there is more to this is the rather singular message discipline — with the same vague assurances and smiley faces — on this from a group of people not exactly well known for message discipline.
I’m glad that Beau is better and I’m very glad that he could get (and afford) treatment and testing from these facilities. But the waves of “don’t worry, be happy” from these folks aren’t especially reassuring.
There’s a difference between being “fine” and not having a problem, but they’re not mutually exclusive. If whatever procedure Beau underwent had resolved the issue, there would be no reason not to describe the condition and the treatment and say this is something we can put behind us.
The fact that they haven’t tells me that there are still things the family doesn’t know about the ultimate resolution, and/or that they don’t want the rest of us to know.
If there are still some unknowns for the family, I can see putting off the offering of a full explanation to the public … but not indefinitely.
Unless there is some evidence he is unable to do his job, it’s none of our business.
Maybe it’s none of your business, but it is the public’s. As noted above, this involves his brain.
Want to have a private life? Easy choice there. Get out of public service.
As I stated it is not the public’s, unless it harms his job performance. We have become such a tabloid culture.
I really don’t care if you think it’s the public’s business. If you don’t want to know, fine, but you don’t get to tell the rest of us whether we get to know or not.
He’s our employee, and when our employees have problems with their brains, I want to know about it.
Whatever is in his brain, a few steroid shots will keep symptoms away for a while.
I think the vagueness might have something to do with keeping the Senate field clear. I’m sure the Bidens don’t want to give away the sense of inevitability, lest a whole bunch of candidates pop up, raising money and questioning Beau’s health.
I think that we have the right know whether the AG is or is not able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. That positive declaration should come from an independent and competent authoritative source. It could be done in a manner similar to the 25th Amendment.
I have no need to know precisely what the disability is, if there is one. Only whether he is able or unable to discharge his responsibilities.
Likewise Geezer, you don’t get to tell the rest of us it is our business.
We pay for a full-time AG. If he is not able to do the job full-time, he should resign. If he has to temporarily step aside, as he did for his Guard service, he should say so, explain why and designate an interim AG.
When a senior public official is facing personal issues that will distract him or her from their duties and responsibilities to a significant extent, they have an obligation to disclose that and make arrangements. If the NBC report is accurate, there’s no way that Beau is going to be able to focus on being AG for the foreseeable future. And while it’s true he has a good staff and can delegate – if he’s going to hand everything off, why do we need an AG anyway?
The NJ has pushed for several years about Carper’s health rumors, yet appears to be soft-pedaling this one. Geezer, any insight as to why?
That’s the thing about people in government. They want to know everything about our personal business , but they don’t want us to know anything about theirs.
The Dept. of Justice act provides that: “In the event that the office of Attorney General becomes vacant, or should the Attorney General be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office due to illness or incapacitation, the Chief Deputy Attorney General shall discharge the powers and duties of the Attorney General for a period not to exceed 90 days or until the Governor appoints a successor, whichever occurs first.”
29 Del. C. sec. 2505(a). If the AG is unable to discharge his duties he cannot delegate his powers to a subordinate and still retain his position with the hope of returning.
Unfortunately, the law is not clear on who determines inability to serve.
Hopefully my son will received the same medical treatment if he gets sick!!!
Hold your horses all of you!! No need to fret, worry, and demand. With all the electronic medical records you were so anxious to rally for–I’m sure some hack will divulge all the information w/ a ribbon tied around it. And that brain–and job performance? Guess that casts a wide net for those now w/ an STD. I mean it only stands to reason now, you want every public person’s treatment record for STDs or by gosh one might have tertiary syphillis, that you the citizen judge might think the doctor missed.
So sad we’ve traded Tiger Beat for Beau Biden Beat. Oh….and Rock Hudson had AIDS and then KISSED people!!!! As an actor–can you believe that? All those fans–who needed to know—because they were buying tickets!!!!
If Rock Hudson had been Delaware’s chief law enforcement officer and abruptly flown across the country to a cancer hospital and there were media reports about a mass on his brain, then yes, Joanne, I would have asked for that information. Let me know if you’re ready to have a conversation about this actual reality.
“Likewise Geezer, you don’t get to tell the rest of us it is our business.”
I don’t get to say it’s your business. But I do get to say it’s the public’s. When you say it’s not your business, you are expressing a lack of interest on your own part. When you say it’s NOBODY’s business, you are in no position to speak for them.
Just as you are free to ignore speech you don’t like but are not free to silence the speaker, you are in no position to silence calls for release of the information. YOUR disinterest does not equal public disinterest. My interest does equal public interest, because WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HE’S HIDING.
Next time you type, try using logic.
@G “My interest does equal public interest, because WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HE’S HIDING.”
It really isn’t your business. In America, health records are private.
…and if you insist that it is, your remedy is to not vote for him. It’s as simple as that.
“It really isn’t your business. In America, health records are private.”
Then why does the president take a physical and release the results every year?
Sorry, but public officials owe things to the public. Honesty is near the top of that list. That’s part of the deal.
But I understand that lots of “liberals” think a Democrat is just as good as a liberal, and that many Delaware “liberals” are under the mistaken impression that the Bidens share their values.
By the way, that privacy only exists because AIDS victims didn’t want people to know they were gay. It was a bad decision then, and it’s a bad decision now.
And, since Beau is just fine, I’m waiting for Joe to reimburse the American public for the personal misuse of Air Force Two.
Can someone save me the archive search and find all the DL comments about how Bill Roth’s health was none of our business during his campaign against Tom Carper?
If I were putting the Delaware Democrats into a line, organized by “most Democratic values to least Democratic values,” I’d put both Bidens in the middle.
Could they be more true to the spirit of FDK, Truman, JFK, LBJ & Carter? Of course. could they be worse? Oh hell yes.
Well, he’s no Tom Carper, I’ll give you that.
And of course Tom Carper refused to make public his physical, while telling everyone he was just fine. So Beau is not doing anything outside the ordinary.
But it does make one realize that if Bill Roth had managed to not pass out in public, he might have made that election against Carper close. Then again, would Roth have even run if people who saw his Foster Brooks performance at the Gridiron Dinner had told the public about it, instead of hiding behind the “off-the-record” nature of the event?
The issue, whether you realize it or not, is transparency.
I realize that what I’m saying is not popular, but I think that’s the standard people in politics should be held to. I realize nobody in politics wants to admit to illness because it causes a measurable drop in electability. And I realize that these questions will come up during the next election for each of them, so “it’s his own private business” might not suffice, except for the fact that there is no Delaware GOP.
I can relate this, tenuously, to Sherry Freebury claiming that her gift/loan was not the public’s business, or Hanifa Shabazz claiming that it’s nobody’s business who pays her rent/mortgage (in response to questions about her ties to Buccini-Pollin). I realize it’s not quite analogous, but the question is related: How much about politicians (as compared with politics itself) should be transparent?
I have a great deal of unwanted expertise-by-proxy on vascular cerebro-spinal abnormalities. If Beau is “fine,” they should be able to get doctors to say that. I would know what they’re talking about, and I’ll decide for myself if he’s “fine.”
Like it or not, Papa Joe opened this up to public scrutiny. He used the jet for non-public business. Tell us why this deserves the public’s indulgence or pay up.
I’m with you 100% on the transparency, it is one of the prices you pay to be a politician. If Tom Carper’s public service career tells us anything – it is that the rewards outweigh the costs.
I’m nonplussed by the jet thing though, which probably means that is all Fox News will be talking about for the next two months.
I’m with you 100% on the transparency, it is one of the prices you pay to be a politician.
I with you too. And the thing that makes me scratch my head is that it is relatively easy to either 1) tell people what ails you or 2) keep it to yourself.
Telling people about your problem tends to get you alot of sympathy from voters. The Senator from SD who had the pretty serious stroke stayed in his office with a fair amount of support until he could get back. Keeping it to yourself pretty much means getting the VP of the United States to stay in his office while you run off for treatment.
Liberals crack me up, you buy hook line and sinker Biden’s hack political words over the years and now you want hi to be honest? Not going to happen, he could shoot a three year old on TV and he would get re elected (Joe and Mini Joe aka Beau).
Biden, the guy who whored for MBNA and bankruptcy bill , has not been correct on one single Foreign Policy Issue ever ad who had 100,000 new Cops which was really less than 50,00 at local expense and says in a bad southern drawl Republicans want to blacks back in chains owns you liberals.
There will be no more information of any significance and liberals will say and do nothing.
Southern Republicans just don’t want blacks to vote. The “chains” comment was a metaphor. [ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr]
I don’t have a right to know my employees’ health issues, just whether they can perform their job or not.
Really? You don’t want to know whether they’ll be able to do their jobs or not?
I’ll grant you that there’s a societal preference for secrecy. But why?
But when your employees need more than the usual time off or time to work from home or perhaps some workspace accommodation for a short period of time, they’ll normally tell you what is going on. Not that they owe you, but that it is customary to say why you need these things.
I am for transparency, but day-to-day, the Attorney General answers only to the Governor (see below).
If the Governor concludes that there is “reasonable cause” to remove the Attorney General, then he can submit the question to the General Assembly. If not, the question of capacity is committed to the Attorney General’s discretion.
You have to trust the political branches; specifically, you have to trust that your top official is asking the right questions.
Addendum: This is equivalent to what cassandra m says is customary, albeit on a stage that is larger (and more public) than your typical office.
@gary myers:
The Chief Justice, the President of the Medical Society of Delaware, and the Commissioner of the Department of the Department of Mental Health, together, may declare that the Governor cannot discharge his or her duties.
If the Governor disagrees, then the Governor can re-assume the position.
And the Chief Justice, the President of the Medical Society of Delaware, and the Commissioner of the Department of the Department of Mental Health may then submit the issue to the General Assembly (2/3 vote).
No equivalent procedure exists for the Attorney General, as far as I know. But I imagine the procedure for removal generally could be invoked.
The Governor can remove the Attorney General for “any reasonable cause” if the General Assembly agrees (2/3 vote).
Cassandra wrote: “But when your employees need more than the usual time off or time to work from home or perhaps some workspace accommodation for a short period of time, they’ll normally tell you what is going on. Not that they owe you, but that it is customary to say why you need these things.”
And if your medical issue is a chronic one covered by FMLA, you do need documentation.
Davy wrote: “the Commissioner of the Department of the Department of Mental Health”
There is no such agency in Delaware any longer. Interesting that no one’s updated the constitution …
Link about removal of Governor: http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-04.shtml#P416_56933
Link about removal of other officers: http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-04.shtml#P384_50946
I don’t believe it is our business. If he can’t do the job, then we don’t reelect him. Otherwise, let him recover and leave him alone.
There is also a statute that implements the constitutional provision as well, and the provision also lists the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health. Most likely, there is a provision, somewhere, that says another officer has the powers that the Commissioner once held.