Adjudication No. 400 (April 1989) [1989] APC 13

ADJUDICATION No. 400 (April 1989)

Mrs Joyce Burnard complains concerning an article "The foundation and fall" which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 November 1988.

The article is the first of two describing the career of Dr William McBride, and the recent controversy surrounding his work on the effects of the drug Debendox. It opens with the following paragraphs:

It's not a deep family secret, and Dr William McBride has never shouted it from the rooftops of his exclusive Woollahra and Palm Beach homes. And somehow the media, which would have relished adding a touch of the tragic to its long-time medical superhero, made nothing of it over the years.

Friends of the family, and doctors who worked with Dr McBride in the early 1960s, know that John, the eldest son of Dr McBride and his wife Dr Pat Glover, was born with significant birth defects, including a learning disability.

The complainant observes that the term "significant birth defects including a learning disability" referred only to a cleft palate; she points out that Mr John McBride has led a normal working and family life. Her main objection, however, is to the article's naming of Mr McBride in the first place, and to its publication of personal details about him.

In reply, the Herald states that it considers Dr McBride's experience with his own son helps to explain his empathy with the parents of disadvantaged children. It was an important fact to include in the article. Mr John McBride's disability however is referred to only in its opening paragraphs, most of the story being devoted to an account of Dr McBride's work in proving the link between birth defects and thalidomide.

Newspapers are of course entitled to make judgments about what constitutes relevant material and to draw speculative conclusions about facts which they report. However such speculation must be weighed against the right to privacy of individuals who are named in the press. In the present case, the significance of Mr John McBride's disability in motivating his father's career was not explored, or even mentioned again in the article. While it may have been relevant it contributed little of substance to the story, and did not, in the Press Council's view, justify the identification of Dr McBride's son.

The complaint is upheld.