BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An AIDS sufferer's search for a dignified and controlled death was explored in A

Deadly Taboo, broadcast by TV3 at 8.30pm on 21 June as part of its series Inside

New Zealand.

On behalf of the Humanity Publishing Society Ltd, assistant editor (Carolyn

Moynihan) complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the programme promoted

euthanasia. As the opponents to euthanasia were given only a brief opportunity to

put their point of view, she maintained that the item was unbalanced. On behalf of

Catholic Communications, the director (Rev Tom Cassidy) also complained about the

item's lack of balance in its treatment of euthanasia.

Maintaining that the item was not an in-depth study of euthanasia but had dealt with

the options facing one person, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied

with TV3's response, Ms Moynihan on behalf of Humanity Publishing and Rev Tom

Cassidy on behalf of Catholic Communications referred the complaints to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upheld the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

"A Deadly Taboo", a programme broadcast by TV3 as part of its Inside New Zealand

documentary series, recounted the story of an AIDS sufferer, Humphrey Mickell, and

his search for a dignified death. The item included an account of the death of Mr

Mickell's partner through euthanasia. As Mr Mickell's partner was Dutch, he was

able to choose euthanasia in Amsterdam, and the programme included an interview

with the doctor who administered the lethal injection. There were also interviews

with doctors at a conference in New Zealand where euthanasia was discussed. The

views of the doctors interviewed covered a range of matters and, while there was some

sympathy for euthanasia as a concept, only one of the medical practitioners

interviewed at the conference unreservedly supported it.

The programme, in addition, recounted the story of two sisters who, after watching

their father's death, had also tried to encourage the legal availability of euthanasia.

One was filmed at the conference referred to in the previous paragraph, where she

sought medical support for voluntary euthanasia.

The two formal complaints about the broadcast referred to the Authority focussed

principally on the item's alleged imbalance. Both complainants also noted the

broadcast took place shortly after a Member of Parliament announced that he intended

to sponsor a private member's bill to legalise euthanasia.

On behalf of the Humanity Publishing Society, the Assistant Editor of "Humanity"

(Carolyn Moynihan) argued that the broadcast promoted euthanasia. The Catholic

view in opposition, she noted, was given by a spokesperson for the proponents of

euthanasia. She believed that a further programme was merited which, to ensure

balance, would advance the opposing perspective.

The complaint made by Rev Tom Cassidy from Catholic Communications was

similar. Not only did the broadcast record and advance one man's campaign to make

euthanasia legal, he wrote, it had badly misrepresented the Catholic position on

euthanasia.

TV3 assessed both complaints under standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

            G6        To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

                         matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

It argued that the programme was not a debate on the issue of euthanasia but "the

honest personal testimony" of Humphrey Mickell. TV3 added:

            As Humphrey Mickell relived his partner's death and faced the question of his

           own, he personally explored some of the questions surrounding euthanasia in

           New Zealand.

He had spoken to various medical professionals and other people with an interest in

the area as he had attempted to come to terms with his own imminent death. It was

not, TV3 stressed, an in-depth examination of the euthanasia debate.

This point was picked up by both complainants when they referred their complaints

to the Authority. Ms Moynihan commented that one man spent most of the

programme making the case for euthanasia. The case was also advanced by two

women and, she concluded:

            Deep it may not have been, but the programme was an extended attempt to

            persuade the public that euthanasia is a good and compassionate thing.

Noting that the programme might have been one person's story, Mr Cassidy pointed

out that euthanasia was becoming a public and political issue. TV3, he said, stated

that because of the approach adopted it was not necessary to give a balanced account

but, nevertheless, it had also argued that the account was balanced. Mr Cassidy

maintained that the second claim was incorrect.

In its assessment of the compelling programme which recounted Humphrey Mickell's

involvement in his partner's death by euthanasia and his search for a dignified death

for himself, the Authority agreed with aspects of TV3's response when it wrote:

            The core of the programme came from the honest personal testimony of

            Humphrey Mickell who shared his own story over the period of one year.

            Had Mr Mickell's personal journey been the programme's entire focus, the Authority

            would have dismissed the complaints about balance.

However, while accepting TV3's protestations that "A Deadly Taboo" was not an in-

depth examination of the euthanasia debate, the Authority noted that the programme

did not confine itself to Mr Mickell's story.

There were two particular aspects of the programme which the Authority considered

required balance. The first was the introduction of the two women referred to above

who, after their father's death, had campaigned for the legalisation of euthanasia. The

second was the presentation of the Catholic perspective on euthanasia by members of

the pro-euthanasia lobby. Both complainants objected to the Catholic view being

presented by its ideological opponents.

As the Catholic anti-euthanasia perspective was not necessarily part of Mr Mickell's

pilgrimage, the Authority decided that the complaint about imbalance on that aspect

was justified.

To summarise, the Authority was of the opinion that Mr Mickell's exploration for a

dignified death – as the programme's defined objective – was a story which, if confined

to his personal experiences, could well have satisfied the balance requirement in

standard G6.

However, the programme was not restricted in this way. In recent months euthanasia

has acquired a much larger place in the public consciousness. That has in part resulted

from the proposal for a parliamentary private member's bill to deal with the issue. As

part of that wider debate, the programme told aspects of another family's developing

interest in, and support for, euthanasia. Following that line of enquiry, the programme

touched on other aspects of the euthanasia debate, principally comments from medical

experts. Having included the wider debate, the Authority considered that the

programme was no longer confined to Mr Mickell's moving search.

The Authority did not accept Ms Moynihan's claim that one man's story required

balance. However, it agreed with her that balance was required when one man's

account and interest in euthanasia:

            ... was supported by two women making a case for euthanasia, the leader of the

            Voluntary Euthanasia Society making a case for euthanasia, and a Dutch doctor

            making a case for euthanasia.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast

by TV3 Network Services Ltd of the programme "A Deadly Taboo", as part of

the Inside New Zealand series, at 8.30pm on 21 June 1995 breached standard G6

of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. As will be apparent from the decision, the Authority

considered that the bulk of the item which focused on one man's search for a dignified

and controlled death was a moving and compelling story which did not demand

balancing. The deviations from his story which required balance were not the

dominant aspects of this broadcast and, accordingly, the Authority decided that an

order was unnecessary on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
26 October 1995

Appendix I

Humanity Publishing Society Ltd's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 20 July 1995

The Assistant Editor of Humanity (Carolyn Moynihan) complained to TV3 Network

Services Ltd about the documentary A Deadly Taboo broadcast at 8.30pm on 21 June

as part of the Inside New Zealand series.

The item, Ms Moynihan wrote, promoted euthanasia and only a few seconds were

given to its opponents. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society spokesperson was given a

longer period than the opponents of euthanasia to present the attitude of the Catholic

Church "in his way". As enquiries with TV3 disclosed that it was not intended to

broadcast a programme with balancing material, a formal complaint was made.

Explaining that Humanity specialised in human life issues and that the programme was

screened shortly after Michael Laws MP proposed legislation to legalise euthanasia,

Ms Moynihan concluded:

            This timing with its political implications, made it more imperative that a

            balance of views be presented within the period of current interest.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 31 July 1995

Assessing the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TV3 stated that the item told the story of AIDS sufferer Humphrey Mickell

and his search for a dignified and controlled death. TV3 added:

            The documentary was not intended to be a debate on the issue of euthanasia.

            The core of the programme came from the honest personal testimony of

            Humphrey Mickell who shared his own story over the period of one year. As

            Humphrey Mickell relived his partner's death and faced the question of his

            own, he personally explored some of the questions surrounding euthanasia in

            New Zealand.

Mr Mickell was required, TV3 continued, to confront the opinions of those (including

his own doctor) who expressed reservations. The programme also included the

comments of two people who specialised in caring for dying people at Auckland

Hospital and two doctors at a conference on euthanasia. The latter two raised some of

the problems associated with legislation.

In declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 concluded:

            A Deadly Taboo was the story of one man as he attempts to come to terms with

            his own imminent death; it was not an indepth examination of the debate

            surrounding euthanasia.

Humanity's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 13 August 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, on behalf of Humanity Publishing Ms Moynihan

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

The programme, she wrote, promoted euthanasia and the opponents were given only a

few seconds to put their point of view. As a balancing programme was not planned,

Ms Moynihan maintained that the broadcast had breached the requirement in standard

G6 for balance.

Focussing on TV3's rejection of the complaint, Ms Moynihan summarised The

Deadly Taboo:

            The fact is that the "one man" spent most of the long programme making a case

            for euthanasia which was supported by two women making a case for

            euthanasia, the leader of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society making a case for

            euthanasia, and a Dutch doctor making a case for euthanasia. Deep it may not

            have been, but the programme was an extended attempt to persuade the public

            that euthanasia is a good and compassionate thing.

Such a one-sided presentation, she stated, was neither fair nor just.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 8 September 1995

TV3 did not wish to add to its comments sent to the complainant in response to the

formal complaint.

Appendix II

Catholic Communications' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 29 June 1995

The Director of Catholic Communications (Rev Tom Cassidy) complained to TV3

Network Services Ltd about the Inside New Zealand programme, A Deadly Taboo,

broadcast at 8.30pm on 21 June.

As the item focussed on one man's campaign to make euthanasia legal while offering

the minimum of arguments for retaining the present law, Mr Cassidy wrote, it

breached the requirement for balance. He added:

            The only excuse I can foresee is that TV3 intends to present another programme

            soon, giving as forceful arguments against euthanasia as the preceding

            programme has given in favour of it.

Mr Cassidy then referred to the various people who were interviewed and, he said:

            The Catholic position on euthanasia was very badly misrepresented as being

            purely doctrinal and illogical. Also the argument from "double effect" was

           misrepresented. The Catholic position here is not that intention is all that

           matters.

He concluded:

            For these reasons among others, I maintain that "A Deadly Taboo" did not

            observe the principle of balance, but was on the contrary a very unbalanced

            programme, and I wish to formally complaint about it.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 31 July 1995

TV3's reply was similar to that dealt with in Appendix I.

Catholic Communications' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

– 24 August 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, on behalf of Catholic Communications Mr Cassidy

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

TV3, Mr Cassidy stated, seemed to argue that it was not necessary to deal with

euthanasia impartially as the programme was a personal story. However, he

continued, the broadcast took place at a time when euthanasia was becoming a public

issue. He added:

            Moreover, while maintaining that their programme was not intended to give

            balanced accounts of both sides of the euthanasia debate, TV3 still try in their

            response to show that they did in fact give a fair account of both sides. I deny

            that for the reasons given in my letter to TV3.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 8 September 1995

TV3 did not wish to add to its response to the formal complaint.