Posted for Tim Sands
The New Zealand Medical Journal is facing legal action from chiropractors after publishing two articles addressing the issue of who can use the term ‘Doctor’.
The Journal has received a letter from a lawyer acting on behalf of the New Zealand Chiropractors’ Association claiming the articles in the journal were defamatory. It threatens further action unless the journal retracts the articles, publishes an apology and pays costs and damages.
David Colquhoun of University College London, a pharmacologist and critic of complementary medicine, was the author of one of the articles. He has posted both of the articles and the NZMJ’s response to the legal letter on his blog.
Under New Zealand law it is illegal for healthcare practitioners to imply they are medical doctors unless they are suitably qualified and registered medical professionals. It is also not totally clear from the wording of the legislation whether holders of a Doctorate of Chiropractic Medicine can legitimately call themselves ‘Doctor’.
According to the lawyer’s letter appearing on the journal website, both the article by Colquhoun article and the second, by Andrew Gilbey of Massey University, are defamatory.
The lawyer’s letter states:
The article written by Professor David Colquhoun and published by the New Zealand Medical Journal (NZMJ) in its 25 July 2008 edition (Vol 121, No 1278) is defamatory of all members of the Chiropractic profession, the New Zealand College of Chiropractic and its President. It is one of the most blatant examples of defamation that we have seen. It is of significant concern that an article in those terms could be written and published in view of the inevitable consequences of those actions.
It asserts, for instance, that 82% of Chiropractors used the title Doctor in order to mislead: that is, they used the title intentionally “to imply that they were registered medical practitioners”. It asserts that this is in breach of the law, and that “it seems clear that the law is not being enforced and it is widely flouted”. It attacks the chiropractic profession, for instance, by suggesting that it preys on the “weak-minded, ignorant, and superstitious”, and that it is “gobbledygook”. It states that the idea of giving a qualification in chiropractic is “ludicrous”, and such a qualification is “accredited by experts in nonsense”. It falsely overstates a risk of death to patients that receive treatment.
The article written by Andrew Gilby [sic] and published by NZMJ is defamatory also. It makes assertions derived from wholly inadequate research, does not detail the criteria upon which its assessments are made thus making statistical “assertions”, and considers that use of the title “Doctor” by chiropractors is “not permissible” and that such practitioners are “unlikely” to be complying with the law. The article suggests that this may harm clients seeking healthcare, and attributes various malicious motives to chiropractors’ use of the title “Doctor” other than as a legitimate courtesy title.
Journal editor Frank Frizelle’s reply closes thus: “I encourage, as we have done previously, the chiropractors and others to join in [the debate], let’s hear your evidence not your legal muscle.”
Sections of the blogosphere are having a field day but in the press only the New Zealand Doctor seems to have reported on this.