Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02678-20 Walker v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. Sarah
Walker complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) in an article headlined “Is this proof ‘life-saving’ ventilators are
actually death traps?” published 18 April 2019.
2. The
article reported on concerns about the use of ventilators to treat patients
with Covid-19. It reported that a named American doctor “has watched over the
beds of hundreds of coronavirus patients, and now believes they are dying
because of the very treatment [ventilators] that is meant to save them”. The
article reported that “After being rushed into hospital, [patients] are knocked
out by sedatives delivered through a throat tube as a ventilator mechanically
pumps their lungs”; that ventilators have been a “standard treatment for the
deadly lung infection pneumonia”; and that, “in a frank YouTube video”, the
named doctor is “heralding a re-think concerning the treatment of severe cases
of Covid-19”. The article reported that “in particular…experts are now asking
whether the best way of saving patients might be to saturate their blood with
oxygen delivered through a mask without using a ventilator”. The article later
stated that “Unlike pneumonia patients, kept on ventilators for a few days,
Covid 19 sufferers are often left on them for weeks, even a month” and that “Older
patients who survive also risk permanent brain disorders from being heavily
sedated for such a long period”. Finally, it stated that “One of the
distinctive symptoms of Covid-19 is the way a yellowy mucous gunk clogs the
millions of tiny air sacs lining the lungs. This means however hard the
ventilator pushes oxygen into the lungs, that oxygen cannot get through the
mucous barrier and into the body…But if the medics try to fix the problem by
turning up the pump volume, it leads to lung damage”.
3. The
article also appeared online in a substantially similar format.
4. The
complainant, a doctor, said that the headline -“Is this proof ‘life-saving’
ventilators are actually deathtraps?”- was misleading. She said it implied that
ventilators were dangerous when in fact they are an important treatment and, in
any event, it is the virus itself rather than the ventilation which would
usually lead to death. She said that the claim that patients needing
ventilation are “knocked out by sedatives delivered through a throat tube” was
inaccurate as such sedatives are delivered intravenously, although she accepted
that this claim was not significantly inaccurate. She said the claim that
ventilators are “a standard treatment for the deadly lung infection pneumonia”
was misleading. Whilst they are an established and accepted form of treatment
for severe cases of pneumonia, most pneumonia patients do not require
ventilation at all. She said the statement that the named doctor’s video “is
heralding a re-think concerning the treatment of severe cases of Covid-19” was
misleading. Whilst she accepted that there had been a “re-think” regarding the
use of ventilators of the sort described by the article, she doubted whether
this re-think was in any way because of this specific video. The complainant
was concerned about the statement that “Unlike pneumonia patients, kept on
ventilators for a few days, Covid 19 sufferers are often left on them for
weeks, even a month”. She accepted that Covid-19 patients generally spend
longer on ventilators but said that the length of time on a ventilator would
usually vary from patient to patient. Regarding the claim that “One of the
distinctive symptoms of Covid-19 is the way a yellowy mucous gunk clogs the
millions of tiny air sacs lining the lungs”, she accepted that this was the
case but said that this was also a symptom of pneumonia. The complaint said
that the statement that “if the medics try to fix the problem [oxygen
starvation caused by the mucus] by turning up the pump volume, it leads to lung
damage”, was inaccurate. Whilst she accepted that barotrauma could result from
increasing the pump volume, she said this was not always the case. Finally, she
said that the statement that “Older patients who survive also risk permanent
brain disorders from being heavily sedated for such a long period” was misleading.
She accepted that she was not an expert on this particular subject and accepted
the use of the word “risk” made this a fair point, but thought that it would
usually be the virus rather than ventilation itself which would lead to hypoxia
and permanent brain disorders. The complainant also said that the article was
scaremongering and sensationalist. She finally said that it had breached Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) as the quantity of inaccuracies could
compound the grief of the family and friends of those who have died of Covid-19
after receiving ventilation.
5. The
publication did not accept it had breached the Code. It stated that the
headline -“Is this proof ‘life-saving’ ventilators are actually deathtraps?”-
was not a statement of fact that ventilators were death traps. Instead, it was
simply a question which served to introduce the views of individuals mentioned
by the article; views that the article made clear ran contrary to the medical
establishment. It accepted that the claim that patients needing ventilation are
“knocked out by sedatives delivered through a throat tube” was inaccurate as
such sedatives are delivered intravenously. However, it did not accept this was
significantly inaccurate. It did not accept that the claim that ventilators are
“a standard treatment for the deadly lung infection pneumonia” was misleading,
where they are an established and accepted form of treatment for severe cases
of the illness. Similarly, it did not accept that the claim that the named doctor’s
video “is heralding a re-think concerning the treatment of severe cases of
Covid-19” was misleading. The use of the word “heralding” simply meant that the
doctor’s video was a sign of the “re-think” the complainant accepted was
underway within the medical profession, and was a reference to the doctor being
one of the first in his sector to raise the subject openly. It did not mean
that the video was instrumental in causing the “re-think” in the way the
complainant had suggested. Regarding the claim that “Unlike pneumonia patients,
kept on ventilators for a few days, Covid 19 sufferers are often left on them
for weeks”, the publication said that medical evidence showed that Covid-19
sufferers generally spent a longer period on ventilators than pneumonia sufferers
requiring ventilation. The publication did not accept that the claim that “if
the medics try to fix the problem [oxygen starvation caused by the mucus] by
turning up the pump volume, it leads to lung damage” was inaccurate. It said
there was a clear risk of barotrauma when exposing delicate lung tissue to high
pressure air. Regarding the claim “Older patients who survive also risk
permanent brain disorders from being heavily sedated for such a long period”,
the publication did not accept this was inaccurate. It said that medical
evidence supported there being a “risk” of cognitive difficulties and pointed
to comments from a prominent physician and a peer-reviewed article in a leading
medical journal which discussed this risk. Finally, it said that Clause 4 was
not applicable to the complaint. Clause 4 is designed to protect those directly
involved in a story concerning grief or shock; whereas this article simply
about the topic of ventilators generally rather than being about specific
individuals affected by grief or shock.
6. The
publication offered to amend sentences in the online article about ventilation
being a “standard treatment for the deadly lung infection pneumonia” and the
claim that sedatives were delivered through the throat. During the referral
period it offered to correct the later claim, with the following wording being
footnoted to the online article and appearing in print on page 2, in the usual
corrections column.
“An
article on April 18 about the use of ventilators on Covid-19 patients said that
before treatment, patients are given sedatives ‘through a throat tube.’ In
fact, the sedatives are delivered intravenously”
7. The
complainant did not accept these offers which she said did not correct the
headline, which she alleged implied that ventilators were “deathtraps”.
Relevant
Code Provisions
8.
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant
inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and
with due prominence, and –where appropriate– an apology published. In cases
involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
9. Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases
involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with
sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Findings
of the Committee
10. Both
parties agreed that the claim that patients requiring ventilation “are knocked
out by sedatives delivered through a throat tube” was inaccurate as such
sedatives are delivered intravenously. Therefore, where the article claimed as
fact that “sedatives [are] delivered through a throat tube”, it failed to take
care not to publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).
11. The
Committee considered that this failure to take care had meant that the article
had incorrectly described part of the medical procedure -ventilation- that
formed the focus of the article. In its view, this gave rise to a significant
inaccuracy requiring correction. The correction offered by the publication on
this point identified the inaccuracy and put the correct position on record. It
was made promptly, before IPSO’s investigation, and with due prominence. There was
no breach of Clause 1(ii).
12. The
headline claim -“Is this proof ‘life-saving’ ventilators are actually deathtraps?”-
was clearly presented as a question rather than as a factual claim that
ventilators are “deathtraps”. The article made clear what the headline claim
referred to, namely the views of named individuals mentioned by the article on
the dangers of ventilation; views the article also made clear where
“unorthodox” and “maverick”. There was no breach of Clause 1.
13.
Where it was accepted that ventilation was an accepted and established
treatment for severe pneumonia cases, it was not inaccurate to state that
ventilators have been a “standard treatment for the deadly lung infection
pneumonia”. There was no breach of Clause 1.
14. The
complainant accepted that there was a “re-think” regarding the use of
ventilators for severe Covid-19 cases as described by the article. It was not
therefore misleading to state that the named doctor’s video was “heralding a
re-think”. This did not mean that the named doctor was the cause of the
“re-think”, only that he was part of and a sign of it, which the complainant
did not dispute. There was no breach of Clause 1.
15. The
claim that “Older patients who survive [ventilation] also risk permanent brain
disorders from being heavily sedated for such a long period” was not
inaccurate, where the publication had provided medical research showing a link
between sedation and long-term cognitive difficulties. The complainant had also
accepted the statement constituted a fair comment as it had used the word
“risk”. There was no breach of Clause 1.
16.
Where it was accepted that severe Covid-19 cases generally remain on
ventilators for longer than severe pneumonia sufferers, it was not misleading
to state “Unlike pneumonia patients, kept on ventilators for a few days, Covid
19 sufferers are often left on them for weeks, even a month”. Readers would be
aware that the time spent on a ventilator may vary between individual patients.
There was no breach of Clause 1.
17. The
complainant stated it had been misleading to claim that “One of the distinctive
symptoms of Covid-19 is the way a yellowy mucous gunk clogs the millions of
tiny air sacs lining the lungs” whilst failing to mention this was also a
symptom of severe pneumonia. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces
of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the
Code. In this case, failing to mention this was also a symptom of pneumonia did
not render the article inaccurate where the focus was on Covid-19. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
18. The
claim that “if the medics try to fix the problem [oxygen starvation caused by
the mucus] by turning up the pump volume, it leads to lung damage” was not
inaccurate, where it was accepted that there was a risk of barotrauma in such
instances. There was no breach of Clause 1.
19.
Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists
make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved
or are in state of shock following a distressing event. The article -a general
report on ventilators and concerns about their use in the fight against
Covid-19- did not focus on or discuss a distressing event affecting a specific
person. There was no breach of Clause 4.
20.
Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or
misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist
and scaremongering, where this does not relate to a specific inaccuracy. The
Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to
shock, to challenge and be partisan. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
21. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
22. The correction which was offered put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published. The publication subsequently added the word “usually” to the last sentence of their correction to clarify the true position, namely that sedatives, whilst usually delivered intravenously, may in exceptional circumstances be delivered orally.
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
23. The complainant
complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by
IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided
that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Date
complaint received: 19/04/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/11/2020
Back to ruling listing