How much personal health information does King Charles owe the public?

On Feb. 5, Buckingham Palace shared the news that King Charles had started treatment for cancer. Although the official statement did not include the particular type of cancer, it closed by noting that, “His Majesty has chosen to share his diagnosis to prevent speculation and in the hope it may assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer.” Indeed, news of King Charles’ initial prostate procedure in January 2024 sparked an immediate and significant increase in traffic for the National Health Service prostate enlargement page.

After releasing the statement about his cancer diagnosis, the official Royal Family account on X (formerly known as Twitter) issued dual social media posts with the U.K. organizations Macmillan Cancer Support and Maggie’s Centres, encouraging both early detection as well as social support of those with cancer.

However, just because he happens to be the king of the United Kingdom, did he have to share information about his health? If so, did he share too little? To what extent does the public hold a “right” to know about (and possibly benefit from) personal health disclosures by public figures? These questions have no simple answers.

Magic Johnson shifted the public narrative about HIV/AIDS after disclosing that he had contracted HIV. After losing her husband to colon cancer, Katie Couric brought attention to the disease by undergoing a colonoscopy on national television. In a New York Times op-ed, Angelina Jolie shared about her decision to attain a double mastectomy following a positive genetic test.

Moreover, a host of other celebrities have embraced their platform to advocate for research funding. For example, actor Michael J. Fox established the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and he has appealed to Congress for additional federal funding. Actress Mary Tyler Moore testified before Congress in 2001 on behalf of funding for diabetes research. Before dying from cancer in 1993, former NC State basketball coach and sports broadcaster Jim Valvano initiated the V Foundation, an organization dedicated to raising money for cancer research and that has, according to its website, “awarded over $353 million in cancer research grants nationwide and has grown to become one of the premier supporters of cutting-edge cancer research.”

However, major differences exist, of course, between a celebrity — such as famous basketball coach or an actor — or a public figure — such as king of the United Kingdom or the U.S. secretary of defense. Over the holidays, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin quietly went into the hospital for prostate cancer treatment without any sort of official statement or even communication to the White House. In his subsequent press conference, he admitted his “mistake” while also referencing his identity as “a pretty private guy.”

Although bosses have a right to know if their employees are not being available for job responsibilities, was his “mistake” only not telling President Biden? Did he also have an obligation to tell the American people? Put differently: Did his public role need to be prioritized over his personal preferences?

Both men have faced scrutiny (albeit to differing extents) over how they handled the disclosure of what would ordinarily be considered as confidential medical information. Although most commentators agree that King Charles insisted upon more transparency and disclosure than prior medical situations in the royal family, a New York Times reporter wrote that the choice to disclose the cancer diagnosis without mentioning the type or level “raised many more questions than it answered.”

As for Austin, journalists and politicians voiced concerns not only about transparency but also about the chain of command. For example, the Pentagon Press Group argued: “The public has a right to know when U.S. cabinet members are hospitalized, under anesthesia or when duties are delegated as the result of any medical procedure. … That has been the practice even up to the president’s level. As the nation’s top defense leader, Secretary Austin has no claim to privacy in this situation.”

Yet, should Austin’s professional role implicitly void his preferences about preserving select personal details as private? In her work on communication privacy management theory, Indiana University’s Sandra Petronio has argued that individuals manage their personal information by setting their own boundaries. As a person discloses personal details to others, they necessarily expand those privacy boundaries and, by extension, enable those others to “co-own” that information. Thus, telling someone else about a health diagnosis means that a person is no longer solely in control of that information — who will have access to it, how it will be interpreted, when and how it will be disclosed to others.

I would suggest that no one — celebrity, public figure, or private citizen — should be forced to expand their privacy boundaries if they don’t want to do so, especially regarding a health situation, even if “good” can come from it. That individual should weigh the possible “good” with potential risks: How will this disclosure affect how others perceive them? How will it influence their relationships with family, friends, co-workers, (and, in the case of celebrities and public figures, fans, political allies and opponents, etc.)? Will the benefits (such as attaining support and/or raising awareness) outweigh the risks of losing control over their own personal health journey as others can then comment, speculate, critique, or question what does and does not get shared?

Another member of the British royal family also recently went into the hospital for a medical procedure. According to the official statement from Kensington Palace on Jan. 17, “Her Royal Highness, the Princess of Wales was admitted to the hospital yesterday for planned abdominal surgery.” Although acknowledging “the interest this statement will generate,” the statement proceeded to convey “her wish that her personal medical information remains private.” That preference did not halt the intense media coverage about her stay in the hospital (and subsequent release) or comparisons between King Charles’ decision to disclose his cancer diagnosis while no further information has been shared about what prompted the Princess of Wales’ surgery.

This tension between public pressure for increased transparency and personal desires for privacy not only fosters friction between public figures and other stakeholders. It also fuels a social media culture that encourages disclosure, even with the associated risks, especially given the vast number of public figures who choose to post on social media about their health conditions (and other aspects of their lives). For example, a 2023 study in Social Media & Society noted that “social media users adjust their self-disclosure behaviors based on what they perceive other users are doing and what those others expect of them, using these distinct social norms as reference points for their own self-disclosure.”

Certainly, disclosures by public figures about health-related matters have contributed powerfully to public dialogues about health and wellness. Those disclosures have raised awareness and saved lives. However, being in the public eye should not require yielding privacy, especially regarding health concerns.

I’m hoping that future decisions by public officials to guard privacy boundaries can be treated with respect for the person going through a health situation as well as the professional who must concurrently handle a particular role and navigate responsibilities. We should acknowledge the challenges and complexities as individuals make their own decisions about how and when health details get shared with others. Before criticizing people for not sharing details about their health during vulnerable moments, we need to think critically about who really needs to know what information from public figures — and the potential personal price for them when we insist that they “owe us” immediate and comprehensive answers.

Christina S. Beck is professor and associate director for graduate studies in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. In addition to other publications, she has authored two books on celebrity health narratives: “Celebrity in the Time of Covid” (2022) and “Celebrity Health Narratives and the Public Health” (2015).