When the cameras should stop

Today's tabloid front pages featured pictures of a distressed Jade Goody leaving home to spend some time in a hospice, suffering some side effects from her cancer treatment drugs. Now it's a fair point to say that she would be no-one and nowhere without the attention of the press. She is 'famous for being famous', has lived her adult life in the public eye, and has made a lot of money out of it. And some would argue that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Unwanted media attention goes with a celebrity lifestyle.

But surely in the current circumstances, where we have a 27 year old mother of two facing an early and painful death, the rules have changed? There's a big difference between stories with which she has willingly co-operated, either because she believes that to do so would help educate young women about the dangers of cervical cancer or because she wants to make as much money as she can to provide for her sons after her death, and pictures snatched by parapazzi photographers lying in wait for her outside her home.

Similarly, although David Cameron has frequently been photographed or filmed with his son Ivan and other family members, I think most people would respect his family's right to privacy at this time. It's just basic decency and I think if one unspoken rule applies for the Camerons, it should also apply to Jade Goody. She has the right to pick and choose when she wants the cameras to run, and when she wants them to stop.

Living (and dying) in the public eye

I'm conflicted, as they say, on the Jade Goody story. Part of me feels that we should all just leave her alone to get better or, as seems more likely, to spend the little time that she has left with her family and friends. Certainly, if that's what she wants, then people should respect her wishes.

Sadly, it seems that she will continue to be a fixture in the tabloids as her illness takes its course, if only because as one of the new breed of celebs that's how she earns her living and that's the only way she has of providing financially for her two sons, both now and in the future when she may not be around to support them. I hope for her sake that the press voluntarily draws a clear line between stories with which she has willingly co-operated and for which she has been paid, and snatched paparazzi shots of her through car windows on her way to hospital or other intrusion.

In most circumstances the press might have an arguable case that someone who sells stories or promotes themself by revealing intimate details of their private life has renounced their right to privacy. Unwanted media intrusion is part and parcel of the celebrity lifestyle (although the Naomi Campbell case shows there are, quite rightly in my view, limits to this. I think the limit was certainly breached in respect of Britney Spears, during a period when she seemed to be suffering from serious mental health problems, and possibly in Kerry Katona's although in the latter case she is clearly often co-operating with the media. But I don't think their celebrity makes them fair game).

So as I said, part of me feels that we should leave Jade alone and therefore I feel slightly uncomfortable blogging about this. But her case does highlight an important issue, and in this day and age, it often takes a celebrity angle to draw attention to such things. From what I've read in the press, Jade had been treated on three previous occasions for pre-cancerous cells identified in smear tests, the first time being when she was only 16. But when a much more recent test revealed another problem, she was too scared to seek treatment. By the time she did, she had cancer, which has now spread.

There was quite a fuss last year when the Government introduced cervical cancer jabs for 12 year old girls (or, to put it more accurately, vaccinations against the human papilloma virus, HPV, which is one of the key causes of cervical cancer) and some scare-mongering from the usual quarters. But if it helps prevent deaths (1000 women a year die from cervical cancer) and promote awareness amongst young women of the disease, then I'm all in favour.

I'm also pressing the Government to explain why smear tests for 16-25 year olds have been withdrawn, on the basis that they allegedly 'do more harm than good'. I've recently written to the Public Health Minister after a constituent raised the issue with me. It's very rare for women in this age group to contract cervical cancer, but it still seems a step in the wrong direction to remove the right to have a test. Fraser Kemp, the Labour MP, has been a real champion of this cause and had an adjournment debate before Christmas. I don't know who's right or wrong on this issue, but I'm glad MPs like Fraser are prepared to ask questions.