Remarking on recent media behavior, Stanisław Karczewski, a PiS senator and former Speaker of the Senate, described the conduct as deeply offensive and shameful. He noted that the journalists involved had previously attacked him in August in a manner he deemed unfounded, ridiculous, and misleading, and he pointed out that there was no apology and that false claims had circulated about his contacts with criminals. He criticized the same reporters for their handling of the marshal’s family, emphasizing that the situation goes beyond personal grievance and touches on journalistic ethics and public trust.
READ ALSO: The Marshal of the Sejm has responded to Radio ZET, labeling the actions as vicious and indicating that legal measures would be pursued. This response underscores the seriousness with which the Sejm leadership views personal data and health disclosures involving family members of public figures.
Radio ZET had published information regarding the health status of the spouse of Sejm Chair Elżbieta Witek, asserting that he had effectively blocked a place in intensive care for an extended period. Although the Witek family is entitled to access high-level medical care under statutory provisions, the marshal’s husband has been receiving treatment in a Legnica hospital for an extended period. Karczewski suggested the episode reveals motivations behind the media attack on both the Sejm chair and her family, seen by many as occurring just before the Easter period.
He reiterated that the journalists’ actions were condemnable, noting that as a physician he believes decisions about treatment are made by doctors guided by the medical oath, independent of political considerations or the patient’s background. In his view, care decisions must rest with medical professionals rather than external factors, and it is inappropriate to claim that one patient’s treatment should come at the expense of another’s. The statement reflects his stance that such comments are irrational and dehumanizing, especially when made about a private individual related to a public figure.
Karczewski stressed that the decisions about medical care lie with the treating physicians and that the ultimate authority rests with the medical team, not the marshal or any political influence. He described this as a doctor-led process, with teams of clinicians determining the most appropriate course of action for each patient, free from non-medical pressures. He framed the issue as a professional boundary dispute that can also be viewed as an indirect critique of the medical staff involved.
Intensified public scrutiny
The situation has drawn sharp attention to how personal health information is shared in public forums. Karczewski argued that publicizing the health status of a private individual breaches privacy norms and, in his view, violates personal data protections. He noted that despite Marshal Witek reportedly sharing some of her family circumstances with the editors, there was no justification for broader disclosure, implying a political motive behind the release of such information.
According to Karczewski, the attack extended beyond the marshal herself to her family, which he considers a political tactic aimed at shaping public perception during an active political campaign. He asserted that such actions do not align with professional or ethical standards, and he expressed confidence that the marshal would pursue legal remedies to address the privacy breach since medical data is protected under professional and legal norms.
As a former senate leader and a surgeon by training, Karczewski pointed to the broader pattern of similar cases, noting that a number of long-term hospitalizations exceeding a year occur annually in Poland. He used this context to argue that the specific case involving Marshal Witek’s spouse is not unique, though its public treatment raises questions about media responsibility and the ethics of reporting on private health matters related to public figures.
In his assessment, the campaign appears to have intensified, with media outlets taking part in the broader election climate. He urged opposition voices to critically evaluate the publication and to recognize the risks associated with exposing private health information in a way that could influence voters and public opinion during the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Karczewski’s professional experience as a surgeon shapes his view that patient care should be governed solely by medical judgment, with doctors bearing the responsibility for clinical decisions. He underscored that public officials and their families deserve protection from sensational coverage that blurs the line between public interest and personal privacy. The episode, he suggested, highlights a troubling trend in which private life becomes a political instrument, overshadowing the focus on healthcare quality and ethical reporting.
The discussion reflects a broader concern about the boundaries between journalism, privacy, and political discourse. It raises questions about how health information is conveyed to the public, the responsibilities of media outlets, and the protections afforded to individuals who are not public figures in their own right but are connected to prominent leaders. The ongoing debate emphasizes the need for careful consideration of ethical standards and the potential impact on public trust when health details become a feature of political storytelling.
In summary, the exchange centers on the tension between reporting and privacy, the professional duties of health care providers, and the ethical limits of media coverage in politically charged environments. The episode is viewed by supporters as a test of accountability for media practices, while critics see it as a warning about the consequences of sensationalism in public life and medical privacy alike.