UK: Simon Singh – sued for criticizing Chiropractic
Another UK case, currently in the courts, is the case of the scientist Simon Singh. This case has received much press and blog coverage, unlike the Heretical Two…
From Wikipedia:
On 19 April 2008, Singh wrote an article in the The Guardian, which resulted in him being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. When the case was first brought against him, The Guardian supported him and funded his legal advice, as well as offering to pay the BCA’s legal costs in an out-of-court settlement if Singh chose to settle. The suit is ongoing, with Singh stating that he will “contest the action vigorously… There is an important issue of freedom of speech at stake.”
The article developed the theme of the recently published book by Singh and Edzard Ernst, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, and made various statements about the usefulness of chiropractic “for such problems as ear infections and infant colic“:
“You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
On Thursday 7 May 2009, a preliminary hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Mr Justice Eady. The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that he was stating, as a matter of fact, that the British Chiropractic Association was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question. Singh has denied he intended any such meaning and that such an interpretation makes it very difficult for him to fight his case in court as he had planned: “If we go to trial it’s almost impossible for me to defend the article, because it’s something I never meant in the first place.”
Singh’s campaign team announced via its Facebook group on 4 June 2009 that Singh had resolved to make an appeal against Mr Justice Eady’s ruling. This decision raises substantially the potential financial liability that Singh may face personally if he loses the case.
Some commentators have suggested this ruling could set a precedent to restrict freedom of speech to criticise alternative medicine.[15][16] An editorial in Nature commented on the case, and suggested that the BCA may be trying to suppress debate and that this use of British libel law is a burden on the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.[17]
The Wall Street Journal Europe has cited the case as an example of how British libel law “chills free speech”, commenting that:
- “Mr. Singh is unlikely to be the last victim of Britain’s libel laws. Settling scientific and political disputes through lawsuits, though, runs counter the very principles that have made Western progress possible. ‘The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error,’ Bertolt Brecht wrote in The Life of Galileo… It is time British politicians restrain the law so that wisdom prevails in the land, and not errors.’… the U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would make British libel judgments unenforceable in the U.S.”
The charity Sense About Science has launched a campaign to draw attention to the case. They have issued a statement entitled “The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence”, which has been signed by myriad individuals representing science, journalism, publishing, arts, humanities, entertainment, skeptics, campaign groups and law. As of July 27, 2009, over 15,000 have signed. Many press sources have covered the issue.
The publicity produced by the libel action has led to formal complaints of false advertising being made against more than 500 individual chiropractors within one 24 hour period, prompting the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to write to its members advising them to remove leaflets that make claims about whiplash and colic from their practice, to be wary of new patients and telephone inquiries, and telling their members: “If you have a website, take it down NOW.” and “Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients[.]“
For whatever good they do, if any, there is a petition online.
