Chiropractors call off the fight
We have been watching the legal battle between the science journalist Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for quite some time and it now appears that the show is over.
The libel case was brought against the journalist for his article in the Guardian newspaper, which described some chiropractic treatments as bogus. Rather than defend their claims to be able to treat specific childhood illnesses through spinal manipulation, the BCA chose to silence their critic. The ensuing case not only put the spotlight on dubious chiropractic treatments, it also demonstrated the need for reform in the English libel law system.
The BCA did not bring a case against the Guardian newspaper, nor did they face the allegations by accepting the Guardian’s invitation to publish a response to the article and show us the evidence to refute them (their later attempt to provide evidence was quickly torn apart as flawed, inadequate or irrelevant1,2,3). They instead used the ridiculous English libel laws to threaten one individual with financial ruin. They were flexing their legal muscle and making an example of Simon Singh should anyone else have the audacity to express their doubts about chiropractic. In short: they were bullying.
Surprisingly, Simon Singh stood firm and defended his article. He received a tidal wave of support and also sparked a campaign to reform the English libel laws, which in their present form stifle free speech and open debate. The three major UK political parties now have the reform issue as part of their election manifestos.
Support also came from people whose course of action was to report many British chiropractors to the Advertising Standards Authority. The impact was evident in a letter issued by the McTimony Chiropractic Association, which urged its members to radically revise their web sites and advertising literature. Currently, one in four chiropractors in the UK are being investigated for misleading claims.
The original ruling in the case interpreted Singh’s use of the word bogus as meaning that chiropractors were complicit in providing therapies which they knew to be ineffective. That would have been a difficult position to defend, but the ruling was appealed and overturned, and the article was deemed to be fair comment and in the public interest.
This case and future reforms to the libel laws should allow scientists, writers and journalists the freedom to comment on unproven medical claims and expose those who advertise them. Without these freedoms, the public could be left unaware that what they are being sold as legitimate, medical treatments may actually have no proven benefit whatsoever.
On the 15th of April the BCA announced they were dropping the case. Simon Singh has lost financially and may never recover all of his costs in defending himself, but his hard work, dedication and sheer stubbornness has resulted in a win for us all.
References:
1) Chiropractic for paediatric conditions: substantial evidence? (BMJ 2009;339:b2766 )
2) A Review of The BCA’s Evidence for Chiropractic
3) The British Chiropractic Association Responds to Simon Singh
Further reading:
Simon Singh libel case dropped [The Guardian]
Chiropractors’ libel case dropped against Simon Singh [BBC]
Simon Singh wins libel battle against chiropractors [New Scientist]
