Resolution
Statement – 11106-21 Duggan v The Comet
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mike
Duggan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Comet breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “A GP has been given a formal warning after self-prescribing
medication, administering vaccines to himself and requesting his own medical
tests.”, published on 9th September 2021.
2. The
article reported on the outcome of a medical practitioners’ tribunal, stating
that a GP, the complainant, had been given a “formal warning after
self-prescribing medication, administering vaccines to himself and requesting
his own medical tests”. It stated that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal
Service had “concluded that Dr Duggan ‘breached the required standards’, but
found his fitness to practise unimpaired”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “GP given formal warning over inappropriate behaviour”. A readers
comment posted underneath the online article read: “…My father had presented to
him on multiple occasions for back pain of increasing severity, along with a
multitude of other symptoms that should have been red flags… I accompanied my
father to his next consultation with a film copy of this x-ray. Dr. Duggan told
me that he could not read the x-ray and asked me to point out the lesion. He
then asked me which cancers metastasise to the spine, in order to select which
department to refer father to. I am a veterinary surgeon. The delay in
diagnosis was 6 months (being completely dismissed during that time). He had
initially presented with flank pain radiating to the groin (typical for kidney
origin) and was later diagnosed with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma
(kidney cancer with spread to the spine, liver and lungs). The only other time
I saw Dr. Duggan was to collect my father’s death certificate.”
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy). He said that the reader comment inaccurately alleged that he was
unable to read an x-ray; did not know where specific cancers spread; and would
not be able to spot metastases on an x-ray. Prior to contacting IPSO, the
complainant had complained directly to the publication regarding the reader
comment but received no response.
5. The
complainant further said that both versions of the article were inaccurate.
Neither mentioned the fact that he had been cleared of acting dishonestly, nor
that the tribunal had dismissed the GMC counsel’s argument that his fitness to
practice had been impaired by reason of misconduct. The complainant also said
that both the print and online articles failed to state that the allegation of
self-administering vaccines was dismissed. The complainant also added that a
previous article published by the same newspaper had reported on the allegation
of dishonesty. He considered that the newspaper should have subsequently
reported he had been cleared of this allegation.
6. The
publication accepted that it had failed to contact the complainant upon receipt
of his direct complaint, and which it apologised for. It removed the comment in
question upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO. The publication said that it
is not always possible to include all information from tribunal hearings and
offered to remove the earlier article which contained the allegation of acting
dishonestly. It also offered to consider a letter written by the complainant
for publication in one of its columns.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Mediated
Outcome
7. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
8. During
IPSO’s investigation the publication amended the online article to remove any
reference to vaccines and vaccinations and offered to publish the following
clarification online:
“A
previous version of this article said Dr Duggan's formal warning had included
the fact he had self-administered vaccinations. However, that allegation was
withdrawn after the tribunal accepted there was not enough evidence to suggest
that was the case. We are sorry for the error and any confusion the mistake may
have caused. We are also happy to confirm that an allegation of dishonesty was
found not proven by the tribunal.”
In
addition, it offered to publish the following clarification in print:
“In the
September 9, 2021, edition of The Comet we published an article about a Medical
Practitioners Tribunal Service misconduct hearing involving Dr Michael Duggan
who had been working at Stevenage's Manor House Surgery. In the article we said
Dr Duggan's formal warning had included the fact he had self-administered
vaccinations. However, that allegation was withdrawn after the tribunal
accepted there was not enough evidence to suggest that was the case. We are
sorry for the error and any confusion the mistake may have caused. We are also
happy to confirm that an allegation of dishonesty was found not proven by the
tribunal.”
9. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
10. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 30/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/03/2022
Back to ruling listing