But that general attitude of reticence should not apply in the case of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has thyroid cancer.

A statement issued by the court on the chief justice's condition was notable for its lack of detail.

Inevitably, that void was immediately filled with rumor, speculation and even who his successor might be.

That's not right.

Ordinarily, a person is assumed to have a right to privacy about his or her medical condition. But this is no ordinary person; this is the chief presiding officer of the highest court in the land. And his role helps shape this country's policies in profound and fundamental ways.

The public and all those who have, or who might have, business before the court need a full and fair accounting of Justice Rehnquist's condition.

Is his condition grave, as some have speculated, or is he likely to return to work, as he initially promised?

The chief justice now says he is undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment and that he will work at home.

But full-time? Part-time? Will he finish what he already has in hand, or does he plan to entertain new cases?

These are not trivial questions.

We admire the judge's determination not to let his illness stand in the way of his important work. But we also need a straightforward statement of what lies ahead.

Today, the Supreme Court often decides crucial issues by the narrowest of 5-4 margins, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor often reflecting the swing vote.

If Rehnquist's condition is such that he cannot credibly participate in these matters, the public has a right to know. If the prognosis is positive, as we hope it is, then we need to know that as well.