Adjudication No. 276 (April 1986) [1986] APC 12

ADJUDICATION No. 276 (April 1986)

Dr Peter Lawrence has complained to the Australian Press Council concerning reports in both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mirror on 12 November 1985, which followed an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia entitled "Ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; which method?". The articles in question were respectively entitled "No 'kiss of life' for dirty patients" and "No-kiss choice". The article in the Mirror was rewritten from the Telegraph. The latter reports that "most medical and nursing staff at a Sydney hospital would refuse to perform the kiss of life on "dirty patients". It reported that Dr Lawrence said most would opt for the bagvalve mask method, but a test showed that in all but three in 100 cases they would fail to revive the patient. He is further reported as saying that the public would rarely hesitate in an emergency to apply mouth-to-mouth ventilation.

The Telegraph report goes on to quote Dr Lawrence as follows: "It seems that hospital personnel are more reluctant, as up to 30 per cent of our subjects would at times make a judgement in the community setting prejudicial to a victim's survival" and "studies of junior hospital staff demonstrated a poor ability to maintain basic life support".

In a letter dated 12 November to the editor of the Telegraph, Dr Lawrence stated:

Your medical reporter has misled the public (No 'Kiss of Life' for dirty patients, Daily Telegraph 11.11.1985) by failing to report the most important part of the study carried out at Concord Hospital.

The impression is given that patients will not be resuscitated if vomiting has occurred. This is simply untrue.

We have demonstrated that the best method of resuscitation in hospitals is mouth to face-mask ventilation. We have developed a new mask for this purpose which has greatly improved the standard of resuscitation at our hospital and which is now used in other hospitals.

The sensational manner in which our study was misrepresented by your paper was offensive to hospital staff and alarming to patients. We demand an apology.

This was published by deleting all reference to:

(i) failing to report the "most important part of the study"

(ii) "misleading the public"

(iii) "untrue" statement

(iv) "sensational manner in which our study was misrepresented by your paper was offensive to hospital staff and alarming to patients. We demand an apology".

While the Telegraph, and consequently The Mirror, was entitled to be selective in its report of the article, it had a duty to be correct and, if shown to be incorrect, to have published Dr Lawrence's letter in full. The matter would have ended there and Dr Lawrence would have been satisfied.

The complaint is upheld.