CHINESE CANCER THERAPY.
This title of a modest advertisement in the Sunday Star-Times last September caught my eye. Two statements in the ad surprised me: the first, that “usually only three treatments are needed”, ie, it is implied that the therapy is a cancer cure, and the second, “…we are currently arranging a scientific Control Group with the Ministry of Health”.

I sent a copy of the advertisement to the Minister, asking him to confirm my impression that claiming to cure cancer is illegal, and also to protest vigorously if his limited funds were being used to “investigate dubious therapies”. Almost before the Minister’s secretarial staff had time to send me a formal acknowledgement, I had a letter from the Advertising Standards Complaints Board; the Ministry’s routine policy is to refer all such letters as mine to this board.

Thus, my letter of enquiry became a Complaint, and I was now a Complainant (with capital C). As of mid-September, my Complaint was number 221 of 1998, so clearly the bureaucrats at the board do not have much time for sitting around drinking coffee.

The Advertising Standards Authority publishes a useful booklet, Advertising Codes of Practice, which lists the criteria to be observed in the various areas of advertising. Using the “Basic Principles” of the “Code for Therapeutic Advertising”, I was able to itemise my Complaint.

Before submitting this, I had had a reply from the Hon Bill English, Minister of Health, answering in an encouraging and unambiguous tone both of my initial queries.

Back to the details of my Complaint. (Quotation marks in the list below enclose words quoted from the Basic Principles.)

Basic Principle number:

1) Compliance with New Zealand law. The Minister’s officials are of the opinion this advertisement does not comply.

2) Social responsibility. This advertisement is aimed at a particularly vulnerable section of society, those suffering from cancer. Claims of 100% success are bound to raise false hopes cruelly in some of these people.

3) I see these claims as “likely to mislead”.

4) No “scientific information” is presented.

5) The statement that research is being set up in conjunction with the Ministry of Health is rebutted by the Minister himself. The claim is thus not “factual” and does not “reflect the Ministry of Health’s approved indications”.

From this point my file began to swell rapidly, with many documents from the Complaints Board, as well as a video and a long booklet from the advertiser. It seems the board keeps no secrets about Complainants from Complainees.

On the other hand, the board sent me copies of the advertiser’s response to them. He wrote, “…The Advertisement makes no claim to be a ‘Cure for Cancer’ but simply advertises a form of Cancer Therapy” and “…the Cancer Therapy we are using (Wai Qi), is shown on the video as practised in Chinese State Hospitals, by a Dr Liu.” He also complained at the Ministry’s refusal to set up a “Control Group”, and threatened that this attitude would drive the study off-shore (Harvard Medical School was mentioned).

I have a copy of the Ministry’s reply to the advertiser’s request for the ‘Control Group’. In a neat piece of bureaucratic buck-passing, the Minister said, “As an academic institution[!], if you want to propose a research study into the therapy’s effectiveness, the appropriate body to contact is the Health Research Committee. Their address is…” The committee’s response to the advertiser’s request does not appear in my files.

Before deciding the issue, the board canvassed other views besides those of the Complainant and advertiser; first, New Media (Auckland), the publishers of Sunday Star-Times, response, a grovelling apology; second, the Ministry of Health, response, a detailed critique, supporting with legal argument each of my grounds for complaint.

The board met on 24 November and considered all the submissions. Its Deliberation upheld my Complaint in all particulars. Basic Principles 1, 2, 3 and 4 had been breached, and in addition it was suggested that the advertisement was in breach of the Medicines Act, as the advertiser’s business address was not stated, and the telephone number given lacked an area code.

So, what next after this minor triumph? The company offering this therapy will doubtless be more circumspect in future, but that further sufferers will not succumb to whatever advertisements they produce is much less certain. Those (an unknown number) who responded to the initial advertisement are unlikely to be advised to look elsewhere for treatment. Apart from upholding my Complaint, and instructing the advertiser to withdraw the advertisement and take steps to see such material was not issued again, the board made no recommendation for future action — no penalty was suggested, no public retraction required. Parallels can be drawn with the recommendations of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, insofar as they upheld our Complaint about the TV Alien Abduction programme.

My contact with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board shows me an official organisation which is prompt and open in its dealings with Complainants and Advertisers. In the present instance at least, it has acted as far as it can in the public interest. With some hundreds of complaints to deal with each year, the promptness and efficiency I have experienced cannot be taken for granted.

Recommended Posts