I have been following the libel suit filed by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) against science author Simon Singh with some interest as alternative medicine is a subject I frequently blog on, and as Singapore's libel laws are descended from the British Common Law.
So far the case has gone in favour of the BCA; the decision hinged on the judge's interpretation of the word 'bogus', which will require Singh to prove (as libel cases involve a reverse burden of proof) intention of the part of chiropractors to deceive, something which is notoriously difficult to do in a court of law. If Singh decides to appeal, his legal team will have their work cut out for them. His decision is eagerly awaited by many in the legal, medical and scientific circles as this case is seen as a test case on freedom of speech and the right to criticise alternative medicine - if Singh loses, this may set a precedent for the use of libel suits as a means to silence legitimate criticism of people professing abilities to heal which they do not in fact possess; in other words, it may soon become too dangerous to call a quack a quack.
Can such a fate befall a blogger in Singapore who criticises the lack of evidence behind the promotion of alternative medicine?
Under Singapore's defamation law (Penal Code Chapter XII), it is indeed possible for a person to defame "a company, or an association or a collection of persons as such". In other words, if in blogging about "X-therapy" (to make up a term for an unspecified alternative medicine to avoid a defamation suit, you understand...) a blogger is deemed to have 'defamed' its practitioners in general, a suit may be brought against him by a body of "X-therapy" practitioners.
This creates a potentially dangerous situation for the blogger writing in his personal capacity, as defending a libel suit can be costly, while an association of practitioners may be better able to afford the cost of hiring lawyers.
As a practising doctor, I have come to accept that one cannot ensure that one will never be the target of a malpractice suit - it comes with the territory - but one may reduce one's chances of having a suit brought against oneself and to reduce the chances of that suit being successful. Are there measures then which our blogger can adopt to reduce his own risks then?
The wording of the defamation law itself perhaps gives us some guidelines on how to avoid some of the pitfalls.
Specifically, Explanation 4. in Section 499 states that "[n]o imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his calling".
In other words, it may be safe if the blogger examines only the evidence behind the form of alternative medicine being discussed, without making any statement on the character of its practitioners. (I confess that I find this hard to do as I personally consider someone who knowingly promotes a form of therapy he or she knows to not be backed by evidence to be at the very least intellectually sloppy, and at the very worst blatantly dishonest.)
However, the law also provides an exception in the First Exception. in Section 499, which states that:
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
This allows the defendant to invoke truth and public interest as defence, but as mentioned earlier, the onus is on the defendant to provide the proof in this case, and the difficulty of proving intent in a court of law remains. This provision then perhaps allows our blogger to write that "X-therapy has not been shown to have any efficacy in the treatment of this condition, and promotion of its use by this population by its practitioners has resulted in these specific mortality and morbidity" but not "X-therapy has not been shown to have any efficacy in the treatment of this condition, and by promoting its use its practitioners are knowingly causing these specific mortality and morbidity in this population".
+++
I am not a lawyer or a student of law, and in the absence of a local test case it remains to be seen if the observations I have made above are accurate and correct, or if a blogger can indeed avoid a lawsuit by taking my advice.
In the meantime, I continue to keep an eye on the BCA suit.
0 comments:
Post a Comment