“We are watching with profound embarrassment as psychiatric treatment is once again being publicly disclosed in political debate. Information about a person’s mental health constitutes particularly sensitive data and is subject to the highest level of protection. Dragging it out, insinuating it, or commenting on it publicly is not only reprehensible but also socially harmful—it reinforces stigmatization and discourages people from seeking help,” stated the Agreement of Medical Residents of the OZZL in response to today’s article by Wojciech Czuchnowski published in Gazeta Wyborcza.
Gazeta Wyborcza began the new week with what has been described as a vile attack on the head of the National Security Bureau. In his article, Wojciech Czuchnowski disclosed medical information taken from the personal security clearance questionnaire of Prof. Sławomir Cenckiewicz. Access to such information should be limited exclusively to the special services. The disclosure concerned medications taken by Prof. Cenckiewicz. According to the narrative advanced by the services and by Czuchnowski himself, the alleged failure to disclose this information could have affected the decision granting access to classified information. This narrative, however, was overturned by a court.
The disclosure of sensitive medical information has also outraged the Supreme Medical Council (Naczelna Izba Lekarska), which stressed that such actions “should never take place.”
“The Supreme Medical Council calls on state authorities to immediately initiate an explanatory proceeding regarding the leak of these data, with the prompt disclosure to the public of the source of the leak,” the statement reads.
Doctors: Standards Cannot Depend on Who Is Affected
Other medical communities, including the Agreement of Medical Residents of the OZZL, have likewise expressed indignation—particularly because the case concerns mental health.
“We are watching with profound embarrassment as psychiatric treatment is once again being publicly disclosed in political debate. Information about a person’s mental health constitutes particularly sensitive data and is subject to the highest level of protection. Dragging it out, insinuating it, or commenting on it publicly is not only reprehensible but also socially harmful—it reinforces stigmatization and discourages people from seeking help,” the residents wrote in their statement.
Doctors emphasize that “all matters concerning the legitimacy of holding specific public offices or the scope of access to information should be resolved internally, by authorized bodies and in accordance with applicable procedures, rather than through selective disclosure in the media space.”
“All the more surprising and disappointing is the fact that such practices are appearing in media outlets that only recently sharply criticized identical behavior when it was committed by the previous governing camp. Standards and principles cannot depend on whom they currently concern,” the residents pointed out.