Adjudication No. 1205 (July 2003) [2003] APC 21

Adjudication No. 1205 (July 2003)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against Woman's Day concerning two articles about people who were trying out alternative remedies in their fight to overcome cancer.

The first, syndicated from the British Evening Standard and published in the magazine in December 2002, concerns Australian motorcyclist, Barry Sheene. The article is ghosted - written in the first person - and it describes his intention to battle his cancer by following a natural organic diet and avoiding established medical procedures. He mentions B17, also known as laetrile or amygdaline, a naturally occurring substance the use of which is illegal in the United States and Australia. Mr Sheene has since died.

The second article, which appeared in March of this year, deals with a woman's success in overcoming cancer: having initially undergone radical surgery and chemotherapy she then turned to alternative remedies, including B17 and other nutritional therapy.

This story included a breakout box with a statement that B17 is a prohibited drug and also a comment from the Cancer Council of South Australia that laetrile has been proposed as a remedy since 1845 but Woman's Daythe available research does not support the claim it's a cancer cure'.

The complainant, Tony Bennett, says that the articles breach Press Council principles by not properly checking the accuracy of the reports and failing to disclose the facts with regard to B17. Mr Bennett says he has conducted his own research into laetrile and concluded that it was ineffective and 'snake oil'.

The magazine, denying any breach of the Council's principles or its guidelines on reporting medical matters, offered Mr Bennett the opportunity to write a letter to the editor explaining his opposition to B17 and outlining its dangers, an offer which he refused.

The articles both clearly identify that they are reporting the opinions and statements of the people involved and do not themselves make any claims for the efficacy of such treatments; they point out that the treatment is not legally available in Australia; and they include a negative appraisal of the treatment from a Cancer Council.