DECISION
Meeting 11 February 2003
Complaint 02/383
Complainant: M. Sparrow - Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand Inc - ALRANZ
Advertisement: New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - SPUC
Complaint: The newspaper advertisement (copy attached) commenced with the bold heading:
"I wish they had told me about the breast cancer/abortion link. Surely I was entitled to fully informed consent?"
Below is the text:
Many international studies have shown a probable link with breast cancer among women who have had abortions. These studies say the risk increases with the abortion of a woman's first pregnancy; if she is young; if she has had other abortions; and if she has not born children."
The Complainant, ALRANZ, said: "I write to complain about the enclosed advertisement which has featured recently in the Sunday Star Times on 27 October 2002, the Dominion Post on 30 October 2002 and the New Zealand Herald on 30 October 2002. I believe it may also have featured in all the major daily newspapers around that time.
The only people who are publicising a possible link between abortion and breast cancer are anti-abortionists, latching on to any shred of evidence to create a scare story to deter women from having abortions. Under the guise of a concern for health risks they are engendering fear and guilt in women already making a difficult decision. Another tactic has been to harass doctors and clinics for not warning patients about this unproven risk.
There is a clear example of these tactics in the enclosed advertisement by the Society for Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) purporting to support Breast Cancer Awareness. The headline reads “I wish they had told me about the breast cancer/abortion link. Surely I was entitled to fully informed consent?” With patients’ rights a topic of current concern, this language encourages litigation. Already in Australia there has been a case (settled out of court in September 2001) where a woman sued the abortion provider for a number of reasons after a difficult abortion. Although not the main complaint her lawyer argued that she had not been provided with information on the link between breast cancer and abortion.
The advertisement goes on to say that “Many international studies have shown a probable link with breast cancer among women who have had abortions.” It fails to say that there have also been other studies which do not support the link. One of the best is a study of all 1.5 million Danish women born between 1935 and 1978, which showed no such link. Some will say there is a possible link, but it is not credible to say that there is a probable link.
Purporting to give scientific credence three authorities are quoted:
1. Dr Joel Bind (spelt incorrectly, it should be Brind) Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health October 1996. This report is not based on original work but is a compilation of previously published articles and has been severely criticised, especially by epidemiologists, especially for its scientific flaws. Dr Brind, not a doctor of medicine nor an epidemiologist, but a human biologist with a PhD, is well known for his anti-abortion views and has made abortion/breast cancer one of his main crusades.
2. The Daling Study, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994. This is the study which started the debate despite the fact that an editorial published in the same journal cautioned that the results are far from conclusive, and more scientific data are needed. The National Cancer Institute released a press statement at the time of publication saying that “Taken together, the inconsistencies and scarcity of existing research do not permit scientific conclusions.” This did not stop Brind from using the data in a major antiabortion publicity campaign. His theory is that the high oestrogen level in early pregnancy stimulates breast cells to proliferate. When a pregnancy is artificially interrupted, as opposed to a natural miscarriage, this causes changes which may later cause cancer. All of this is speculation without scientific proof.
3. The World Health Organisation study 1970. It is disingenuous to quote a 1970 study when the WHO has clearly stated in 2000 that induced abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. The WHO fact sheet no. 240 issued in June 2000 is attached for your information.
A number of authoritative medical and scientific bodies have closely examined the evidence and concluded that to date the research is inconclusive and the link is unproven. As well as the WHO and the National Cancer Institute quoted above, there is also support for this stance from The Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (UK), The American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (USA).
Secondly, the issues have been tested in the courts in the USA. In March 2002 a San Diego judge threw out a lawsuit filed by a family values group, the Thomas More Law Center, demanding that Planned Parenthood inform women of a possible link between abortions and breast cancer. Planned Parenthood vigorously disputed the claim saying that no such scientific evidence exists and the judge ruled that the case should not proceed to trial.
Another case filed by the same attorney did go to trial. An anti-abortion woman protester from Fargo, North Dakota complained about the Red River Women’s Clinic’s brochure which states: “Some anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. A substantial body of medical research indicates that there is no established link between abortion and breast cancer.” The plaintiffs sole witness at the trial in March 2002 was Dr Joel Brind. Testifying against him were a number of distinguished experts. The judge ruled emphatically in favour of the clinic.
I believe the advertisement is in breach of the following:
(a) Rule 2 Truthful Presentation of the Advertising Code of Ethics. The claims made in the advertisement are misleading and deceptive. They are also false and misleading. In addition they exploit the lack of knowledge on the part of the New Zealand public.
(b) Rule 3 Research, Tests and Surveys of the Advertising Code of Ethics. This states that advertisements should not use tests and surveys, research results or quotations from technical and scientific literature, in a manner which is misleading or deceptive. However that is exactly what SPUC have done with this advertisement.
(c) Rule 6 Fear of the Advertising Code of Ethics. Advertisements should not, without justifiable reason, play on fear. The advertisement does just that. It is not justifiable to say there is a probable link between abortion and breast cancer because scientifically it has never been proved.
(d) Rule 11 Advocacy Advertising of the Advertising Code of Ethics. The code requires that opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The advertisement is in breach of this Rule because it claims to be based on fact whereas it is not.
(e) Guideline 3(a) of the Code for Therapeutic Advertising. This states that therapeutic claims should be factual and be able to be proved. The advertisement is in breach of this guideline because the advertisement makes a therapeutic claim which is false. The therapeutic claim is that not having an abortion gives some protection against breast cancer. This is false.
The following documents are provided to refute the claims made in the advertisement:
Copies of other studies quoted above can be supplied if the ASCB requires them.
1. Article from the New England Journal of Medicine January 9, 1997: Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer. Attached are the full article preceded by an abstract (summary) of the article. This article reports a Danish study and concludes that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.
2. Article BBC News Online: Health 14 August 2000 in which the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that the links between abortion and breast cancer were inconclusive.
3. Article dated 11/8/2000 Abortion and Breast Cancer from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
4. World Health Office Fact Sheet No. 240 Induced Abortion Does Not Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer.
It has been consistently held by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board that the onus on proving that the claims are true lies on the advertiser. It is submitted SPUC cannot prove its case. Nor is this just a straight advocacy matter because the advertisement goes further than being simply an opinion.
Accordingly my association seeks a ruling that the advertisement is in breach of the Codes and must not be published again."
The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant:
Code for Therapeutic Advertising
Principle 3: Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive consumers, abuse the trust of or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers, exploit the superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear.
Guideline 3(a): Therapeutic claims should be factual and able to be proved.
Code of Ethics
Rule 2: Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).
Rule 3: Research, Tests and Surveys - Advertisements should not use tests and surveys, research results or quotations from technical and scientific literature, in a manner which is misleading or deceptive.
Rule 6: Fear - Advertisements should not exploit the superstitious, nor without justifiable reason, play on fear.
Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising - Expression of opinion in advocacy advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore such opinions may be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an advertiser in matters of public interest or political issue should be clear.
The Advertiser, SPUC, said: "… This letter serves to respond to the complaint of ALRANZ through its President, Dr Margaret Sparrow. This response is not on behalf of any other parties, nor did the Society use an agency in the preparation of the advertisement.
The complaint of ALRANZ is rejected. Appendices attached hereto will clearly demonstrate that the advertisement is factual and its intention is to be informative for women and protective of their health and is, thereby, a public good.
Taking Dr Sparrow’s assertions in sequence:
(a) Truthful Presentation (Rule 2): The detail of the advertisement is based on the findings of internationally sourced studies compiled over 45 years. It is an accurate presentation of these findings.
(b) Research, Tests and Surveys (Rule 3): The statements made in the advertisement are an accurate reflection of the data.
(c) Fear (Rule 6): The intention of the advertisement is to raise awareness and assist women who (1) may be contemplating actions surrounding pregnancy or (2) have undergone induced abortion in the past and, as a consequence, may need to be additionally vigilant.
(d) Advocacy Advertising (Rule 11): The information is derived from independent studies requiring strict analytical controls, and has been presented in a generally conservative manner.
(e) Therapeutic Advertising (Guideline 3a): The advertisement makes no claim that “not having an abortion gives some protection against breast cancer”. This complaint is fiction.
I wish enlarge on some of the above and to respond to some of the comments made by Dr Sparrow.
The body of evidence supporting the statements made in the advertisement is substantial [see Appendices A and B]. Her comment that only those who wish to protect children from death and mothers from harm caused by induced abortion publicise the abortion / breast cancer link is not correct. Neither Dr Thomas Stuttaford, Dr Janet Daling nor Dr Stuart Donnan, for instance, would necessarily fit this description [see Appendices C and D].
The suggestion that the intention of this advertising is to engender “guilt and fear” in women is unfounded in fact. It may have caused these reactions amongst the abortion providers, but the Society cannot be held accountable for their condition.
Much has been made of the “Danish” study of Melbye et al. This study has been shown to be seriously flawed in its methodology and conclusions [see Appendices E, F and L(Table 5)]. One wonders whether this was a study which set out with a predicted outcome - to disprove the accumulating international evidence linking induced abortion to breast cancer. That it was funded in part by the U S Department of Defence during the Presidential term of Bill Clinton (who vetoed the ban on the so - called partial - birth abortions) raises questions of partiality [see Appendix G].
Those who wish to dismiss the “unfavourable” findings of case - control studies resort to the claim of “recall bias. This claim has no basis in fact [see Appendix H].
The ALRANZ complaint refers to court cases in the United States. For additional information on these, the article by Ellen Rice is enlightening [see Appendix I]. Based on the evidence, we hold that stating “A substantial body of medical research indicates there is no established link between abortion and breast cancer” (the Melbye study??) is less correct than saying “Many international studies have shown a probable link with breast cancer among women who have had abortions”.
One must be guarded against accepting carte blanche the rulings of the American judiciary. It has been known to be duped by manipulators of the truth. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 1973, which declared a constitutional right for American women to induced abortion, was based on fabrication. The induced abortion industry has been sustained in like manner since.
It is generally accepted that there are some natural barriers to the development of breast cancer. Women least likely to develop the disease are those who have (1) had a pregnancy early in life carried to full term. (2) had subsequent full - term pregnancies, and (3) breast-fed their babies for significant periods.
A number of studies support these views [see Appendix J]. It follows that if childbearing and natural breastfeeding are beneficial for the mother’s future health in respect of exposure to breast cancer, then the single act of violent interruption (induced abortion) to that natural process, especially of a first pregnancy, could probably have an equally deleterious effect.
Some of the probable causes of breast cancer have been published in popular magazines, and the chilling reminders of the risk to New Zealand women are similarly advertised. The need for vigilance in examination is regularly exhorted [see Appendix K]. The advertisement of this Society was in accord with these motivations.
It is beyond dispute that the incidence of breast cancer amongst New Zealand women has increased over recent years and it is notable that, where it was formerly seen to be an affliction restricted to later life, its appearance is evident at much earlier age levels. It is beyond coincidence that this phenomenon parallels the sharp increase in the numbers of induced abortions during the same period [see Appendix L (Table 1)].
One might expect that many in the medical and cancer research fraternities would be acting with prudence, and advising women of the dangers, even if considered slight. We might compare this with the campaigns against smoking or drinking alcohol while pregnant. Surely, women are entitled to fully informed consent?
But there seems to be a conspiracy of silence. In such an environment, those with a real concern for the health of women have more than a responsibility to fill the breach - we have a duty. The advertisement of the Society was such an action.
In the final analysis, you are faced with information from two groups which occupy the opposite ends of a particular spectrum. You may care to consider motivation. This Society is made up of volunteers, mostly women, who wish to protect human life, both babies and their mothers. They receive no financial gain from their efforts, rather they work at considerable personal cost.
Dr Sparrow is a representative of those who have shared in a payout of over $250,000,000 in the past 25 years in the induced abortion industry. Perhaps they see any information which portrays induced abortion in its true light as threatening.
Her complaint is rejected in total. We await your reply.
SCHEDULE OF APPENDICES
A. Women’s health after abortion, Ring-Cassidy & Gentles, contents of Chapter 2 - comment on the international evidence devoid of ideological bias, and the “establishment” response.
B. Breast Cancer Prevention Institute - data from fact-file with significance of study findings.
C. The Times: Medical briefing, Stuttaford - comment on link between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer.
D. Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer - quotes from Dr Janet Daling and from Dr Stuart Donnan concerning communicating the results of valid analysis.
E. Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer - comment on the Melbye et al study, its methodology and conclusions.
F. Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer - assessment of the responses, in general, by the medical establishment and media to the release of information linking induced abortion to breast cancer.
G. The New England Journal of Medicine: Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer - footnotes, showing involvement of US Department of Defence, coupled with notes on “partial-birth” abortion procedure and decision of President Bill Clinton.
H. Coalition on Abortion I Breast Cancer - comment on “recall bias” and results of research into its incidence, which indicates no evidence of its relevant existence.
I. Is Abortion Related to Breast Cancer? Too Political to Address, Rice - comment on why the evidence surrounding the link between induced abortion and breast cancer may be concealed.
J. Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change, Research Bulletin - summary of studies into childbirth as a protection against breast cancer.
K. Next Issue 220 November 2002, Breast Cancer feature - comment on risk factors for breast cancer, advertisement highlighting incidence, increase, and comparative rate within New Zealand. and value of early detection.
L. Report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee for 2002 -Table 1 showing the dramatic increase in numbers of abortions induced in New Zealand in past 20 years; Table 2 showing that less than 15% of these are performed on women <14 and >35 years (relevant to Melbye et al study)."
Newspaper Publishers' Association said on behalf of the media: “I write in response to the above complaint on behalf of the daily and Sunday newspaper industry.
The NPA Secretariat provides advice on advertising matters to member newspapers.The Secretariat viewed this advertisement prior to publication. In providing advice to newspapers, the NPA considered the principles and rules in the Advertising Codes of Practice.
Prior to publication, the advertisement was considered under the Code of Ethics, rule 11, advocacy. It is clearly a statement of a particular position from an organisation whose opinions are widely known in the abortion debate.
A number of changes were made to the advertisement prior to publication to ensure the wording complied with the codes.
Abortion is a hugely emotive argument and organisations on either side passionately believe that they are in the right. In requesting further information from the advertiser to substantiate the statements in the advertisement, it became clear that for every study or article in support of the link, there were just as many denying it.
However, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act recognises the importance of freedom of expression. The identity of the advertiser was clear, information in the advertisement was referenced to enable readers to access the full studies, and the statement in quotes was allowed following discussion with the advertiser that it was a true and fair statement made by a woman who had had an abortion.
I hope this information is helpful. We await the decision of the Board."
Deliberation
The Complaints Board perused the relevant correspondence and the advertisement. The Complainant, ALRANZ, was of the view that the SPUC advertisement informing women that there was a probable link between the likelihood of contracting breast cancer and the abortion of a first pregnancy, was misleading and likely to cause fear.
The Chairman directed the Board to consider the Complaint with reference to the Codes nominated by the Complainant, which were the Code of Ethics, Rules 2, 3, 6 and 11, and the Code for Therapeutic Advertising, Basic Principle 3, Guideline 3(a).
The Complaints Board noted that the SPUC advertisement was clearly an advocacy advertisement and therefore came under the auspices of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics which made provision for the expression of robust opinions, although such must be distinguishable from factual information. It noted that the information subject to complaint was presented as fact. In accordance with the usual procedures of the Complaints Board, as it had been questioned by the Complainant the onus of substantiation fell within the domain of the Advertiser.
In the matter before it, the Complaints Board concurred with the opinion expressed by the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, “that for every study or article in support of the link, there were just as many denying it.” and concluded that at the present time the research was inconclusive. The Complaints Board reiterated its position in relation to such matters, that it was not an arbiter of scientific fact, but was confined to the consideration of the content of advertisements subject to complaint. In this instance it noted that SPUC had selected reference material which supported their strongly held point of view.
The Complaints Board then took into account the specific message, a warning about the “probable” link between breast cancer and the abortion of a first pregnancy, and the audience, women of 50 – 60 years old who may have had an abortion 30 – 40 years ago, and also women who were currently in the position of having to consider aborting their first pregnancy. The Complaints Board looked at the evidence provided by SPUC with its submission (See Schedule of Appendices) and concluded that although there could be a "possible" link, it certainly was not more than that. The Complaints Board therefore concurred with the view of the Complainant ALRANZ, that a more accurate warning would have included the word “possible” rather than “probable” as "probable" overstated the position. The Complaints Board also considered the medium in which the advertisement had been published, daily and Sunday newspapers, which facilitated a very high and far reaching exposure rate. The majority of the Board was of the view that the advertisement as worded, directed at women in a very serious predicament, was not socially responsible as it would be likely to engender feelings of guilt and fear and therefore it was in breach of Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics.
However, a minority disagreed. In its view, readers would be well aware of the objectives of SPUC, the advertiser, who was clearly identified, and the readers' interpretation would be adjusted accordingly. In their view the Advertisement had been saved by Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.
The Board then addressed the issue of whether the research material quoted in the Advertisement had been used in a misleading or deceptive manner and concluded that to refer to a World Health Organisation study of 1970, which had since been superseded by more recent research, was inappropriate and in breach of Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Ethics. Having thus ruled, the Complaints Board saw no need to consider the matter in respect of the Code for Therapeutic Advertising.
Taking all of the above matters into consideration, the Board ruled to uphold the Complaint.
Decision: Complaint Upheld
DECISION
Chairman's Ruling
1 May 2003
Complaint 02/383
Appeal 03/14
Applicant: New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - SPUC
Complainant: M. Sparrow - Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand Inc - ALRANZ
Advertisement: New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - SPUC
Complaint: The newspaper advertisement (copy attached) commenced with the bold heading
"I wish they had told me about the breast cancer/abortion link. Surely I was entitled to fully informed consent?"
Below is the text:
Many international studies have shown a probable link with breast cancer among women who have had abortions. These studies say the risk increases with the abortion of a woman's first pregnancy; if she is young; if she has had other abortions; and if she has not borne children."
The Complainant said the SPUC advertisement was misleading and irresponsible to state that "studies had shown a probable link…".
The relevant provisions were the Code of Ethics, Rules 2, 3, 6 and 11: also, the Code for Therapeutic Advertising, Principle 3, Guideline 3(a).
The Complaints Board ruled, at its meeting on 11 February 2003, to Uphold the Complaint as it was in breach of Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Ethics.
The Applicant wrote:
"re: Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint 2002/383 APPEAL
… As indicated in the letter dated 10 March 2003, the Society wishes to appeal the Decision, as laid out in this letter.
This Appeal is stated in respect of Clause 6 (a) subsections
6(a)(ii) There is new evidence of sufficient substance to affect the decision
In February of this year, Dr Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon from New Jersey in the United States, visited New Zealand briefly. Amongst a series of public meetings and media interviews, she spoke with Wayne Mowat on the National Radio afternoon programme “In touch with New Zealand”.
A recording of the interview was made and would be available should the Board wish to hear it (although I understand that this is not usual practice).
The content of that interview was similar to that of an address given by Dr Lanfranchi to surgery students and staff at Georgetown University in November of last year. A transcript of the Georgetown address is enclosed (see APPENDIX M).
Please consider this document in its totality, as contained therein are matters which relate to the other subsections on which this Appeal is based.
6(a)(iii) Evidence provided to the Complaints Board has been misinterpreted to the extent that it has affected the decision
It is contested that the opinion of the Newspaper Publishers’Association, “that for every study or article in support of the link, there were just as many denying it" is a generalisation not supported in fact, and that this has provided undue influence on the outcome of deliberations. Clearly, the significant majority of international studies, and the overwhelming majority of studies undertaken in the United States show a positive link between induced abortion and later breast cancer in those women studied.
Most of these studies are “statistically significant”- that is to say, that one can be 95% confident that all of the population assessed within the study will show a positive association between the two events. In these studies induced abortion may be taken to be an independent risk factor for breast cancer.
Dr Sparrow seeks to downplay Dr Joel Brind’s work by labelling him as "not a doctor of medicine nor an epidemiologist, but a human biologist with a PhD, .. well known for his anti-abortion views and has made abortion/breast cancer one of his main crusades." Dr Brind is an endocrinologist and a skillful researcher.
His meta - analysis is as Dr Sparrow contends, a compilation of previously published articles. Thus, it is not any supposed bias of Dr Brind which is being reported, but the findings of a range of international researchers, most of whom could be classed with Dr Sparrow as being pro-abortion. He has merely brought together the then - known literature, in order to provide quantitative data. The earliest of the studies was undertaken in Japan in 1957, long before people were being labelled “anti-abortion, probably because, in those times, induced abortion was as much an anathema to the medical fraternity as it was to any other civilised person.
One does not have to be a specialist in any field in order to be able to identify fact, merely a well organised person of perception and integrity. The British College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has studied Brind’s work and considered it to be “methodologically sound".
Although Dr Sparrow is not a psychiatrist, we have not challenged her ability to assess the serious danger to the future mental health of the large number of women whose children she has aborted over the years, even though that would have been the ground on which the crime would have been excused.
On the other hand, Dr Angela Lanfranchi is a specialist in the breast cancer domain, and it is as a result of being alerted to the abortion/breast cancer link that she was able to conduct her own research on patients and confirm it. at least on a first-hand basis.
6(a)(iv) The decision is against the weight of evidence
As noted above, the statements contained in the Society’s advertisement are borne out in the data. Additionally, one should be mindful of the advertisement’s overall intention. It was intended to support breast cancer awareness, and this was stated clearly. Moreover, the image of a young woman needs to be noted in reference to the remarks of Dr Lanfranchi on Page 3 of her address (see APPENDIX M. attached):
Criteria 5 - There should be a large effect observed
In the case of abortion and breast cancer there are subsets of women with very high risks. For example, in the 1994 Daling study. ALL the teenagers who had abortions at 18 or younger and had a family history of breast cancer developed breast cancer by age 45. The risk could not be calculated and was reported as infinity. (Emphasis added).
In the case of the young woman in the advertisement, her risk may have been very high indeed if a family history of breast cancer was present.
The Decision indicated that the advertisement was deemed to breach the standard relating to “Fear”. and mainly on the basis that the one word “probable’ was considered inappropriate. You suggested that the word “possible” would have been an acceptable substitute.
My dictionary defines these two terms thus:
Probable - that may be expected to happen or prove true
Possible - that can exist, be done, or happen
It is often said that, “Anything is possible’, which relegates the word “possible" to the widest parameters imaginable.
Equally, one might suggest that it is possible that all members of the Complaints Board are left-handed, but it is probable that they are not. Dr Sparrow would seek to consign compelling data to the inconclusive category, and it is to be regretted that the Board’s decision found in that favour.
That finding is at odds with the weight of evidence.
6(a)(v) It is in the interests of natural justice that the matter be reheard
The principal issue at stake here, is the right of people to information, especially that which may have a major bearing on their decision - making in respect of their health. One has to question the motivation of Dr Sparrow and those of her organisation and persuasion. Do they have the best interests of women, mothers and their children uppermost? If so, where is the evidence?
It is a sad reflection on the medical fraternity, generally, and on those involved in the cancer disciplines, in particular, that they have sought to muzzle this information. If they are not going to provide women with the facts by which they can reach informed decisions, who will?
Inevitably, it must fall to those who do care. And in these instances, we rely on an ethical media to support natural justice.
This is not about creating fear, but about providing information. If the likes of Dr Sparrow were truthful with women and advised them of all the risk factors, however slight she may deem these to be, then perhaps fewer women might realise a fear that afflicts Us all - that of death from cancer.
As Dr Janet Daling said, “If politics gets involved in science it will really hold back the progress we make. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, its a matter of what is."
This Society’s advertising campaign is founded on compassion and fact.
We repeat our rejection of the ALRANZ complaint and, based on this submission, request that the Complaints Board decision to uphold that complaint be reversed."
* Appendix M was attached.
Chairman's Ruling
The Chairman perused the application for appeal in full.
He took into account the Applicant's submission but was of the view that the "new" evidence provided was merely a restatement of earlier evidence and therefore did not constitute sufficient grounds for the appeal to proceed.
Furthermore, he noted from "Appendix M", A. Lanfranchi, The Abortion Breast Cancer Link, submitted by the Applicant, that paragraph 3 on page 7 stated:
"Even if someone remains unconvinced of the causal nature of the abortion breast cancer link, surely no one can feel that there is insufficient evidence that women should not be informed of this possibility." (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, this endorsed the Complaints Board's deliberation where it stated:
"a more accurate warning would have included the word "possible" rather than "probable" as that overstated the position".
Accordingly the Chairman was in no doubt that the Complaints Board had ruled correctly to uphold the ALRANZ complaint about the SPUC advertisement.
In the Chairman's view the application did not fulfil any of the five grounds for appeal as stated in the Appeal Rule, but merely expressed disagreement with the Complaints Board Decision.
Accordingly the Chairman ruled that it was not in the interests of natural justice for the appeal to proceed.
Decision: Application Declined
DECISION
Chairperson's Ruling
Meeting 14 August 2003
Complaint 02/383
Appeal 03/14
Applicant: New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - SPUC
Complainant: M. Sparrow - Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand Inc - ALRANZ
Advertisement: New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - SPUC
Complaint: The newspaper advertisement (copy attached) commenced with the bold heading:
"I wish they had told me about the breast cancer/abortion link. Surely I was entitled to fully informed consent?"
Below was the text:
" Many international studies have shown a probable link with breast cancer among women who have had abortions. These studies say the risk increases with the abortion of a woman's first pregnancy; if she is young; if she has had other abortions; and if she has not borne children."
The Complainant said the SPUC advertisement was misleading and irresponsible to state that "studies had shown a probable link…".
The relevant provisions were the Code of Ethics, Rules 2, 3, 6 and 11: also, the Code for Therapeutic Advertising, Principle 3, Guideline 3(a).
The Complaints Board ruled, at its meeting on 11 February 2003, to Uphold the Complaint as it was in breach of Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Ethics.
Appeal of the Complaints Board Decision
The Applicant, New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Incorporated (SPUC), appealed the Complaints Board Decision.
The Chairman's Ruled on 1 May 2003 that it was not in the interests of natural justice for the appeal to proceed as the application did not fulfil any of the five grounds for appeal as stated in the Appeal Rule, but merely expressed disagreement with the Complaints Board Decision.
Accordingly, the application was declined.
Appeal of the Chairman's Ruling
The Applicant, New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Incorporated (SPUC), wrote appealing the Chairman's Ruling in correspondence of 15 July:
"Further to our telephone conversation earlier today, I wish to request that a further appeal, against the ruling of the Chairman of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (dated 1 May 2003), be considered in relation to the complaint upheld by the Board in respect of this Society’s newspaper advertising last November.
I am aware that the usual period within which such an appeal may be lodged has lapsed but, as discussed with you, there were factors regarding this which I request be taken into consideration.
Your letter of advice dated 20 May 2003 was received in this office during my absence on Society business in the South Island. I returned with what I now understand to have been a strain of the influenza virus and for some time was limited in my attention to office functions.
In this time I misread your letter to mean that a final decision from the Chairman was still to be received. This is the result of your letter of May being similar to an earlier one in February and which was followed approximately two months later by the original Decision. I understand the pressures of “office overload” only too well, and anticipated a delay of similar duration with the appeal decision.
It was only through re-reading your letter, with the Decision attached, in preparation to phoning you to enquire of its whereabouts, that I realised my error. In this context, may a period of grace be extended?
If this is accepted, will the addendum to the appeal which was dated 30 April and contained detail especially pertinent to the Society’s argument be considered? This is even more relevant on reading the Chairman’s reference to the word “probable”.
I look forward to your advice concerning this matter and hope that a lenient view will be taken regarding the elapsed time. …
Thank you for your attention to these matters."
Chairperson's Ruling
In accordance with normal procedures the appeal application was forwarded to the Chairperson with all other relevant information.
The Chairperson noted that the appeal before her was against the ruling of the Chairman of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board that an appeal against the Complaints Board decision 2002/383 was not accepted by him on the basis that the purported "new” evidence in fact substantiated the decision arrived at by the Complaints Board that any “probable” link between abortion and breast cancer could not be substantiated; the word “possible” being found to have been more appropriate.
The Chairperson also noted that the appeal was received out of time with the explanation being that due to a number of reasons, the letter attaching the decision had been misread and had been confused with an earlier letter received in February advising that a decision had been made by the Complaints Board (and what that decision was) and advising that the full decision would follow in due course.
Deliberation
The Chairperson said, "With respect, I find it hard to see how a single page stating that a decision had been made and that the full decision would follow in due course, could be mistaken for a letter that clearly began with the words:
“Please find enclosed for your information a copy of the decision"
and which had a further five pages, comprising that decision, attached to it.
Timelines for appeals are set in all jurisdictions to ensure equity between parties in that certainty as to finality is to be expected. Only in exceptional circumstances should the obligation to meet timelines be waived. In this particular case, a letter of “notice” was sent on 7 May 2003 advising of the decision and that a copy of the full decision would be sent in due course. This was subsequently done on 20 May 2003.
Accordingly, the letter of appeal dated 15 July 2003 is not accepted."
Decision: Appeal Not Accepted