The British Chiropractic Association is All About Free Speech—So They Filed a Libel Suit

"...And Justice For All" by Protopito goes to Nederland under CC-BY-NC-ND via Flickr

So the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) “had no wish for its dispute with Simon Singh to end up in the courtroom.”

I’m just curious: what did the BCA think would happen when they filed their libel suit against Singh?

The British Chiropractic Association has finally released a list of papers they purport support their claims about the efficacy of chiropractic in the treatment of a variety of childhood ailments, such as colic and asthma. (For those interested, these have been dissected here, here, and here, among many other places.) Interestingly, it’s taken them 15 months to make their evidence public, a delay English lawyer and blogger Jack of Kent examines closely, and asserts was not likely due to legal constraints.

In the statement preceding the list, the BCA tries to position itself as a financially strapped little guy:

“The BCA is not a large organisation with huge financial resources and manpower – far from it.  Despite this, the BCA recognises that ongoing research Tinto the effectiveness of chiropractic is of major importance.  For this very reason, the BCA has for the last three years donated a substantial part of its budget to fund research projects for the profession, which are currently on-going.”

Perhaps the BCA should have considered their financial position, and the potential effect on their research budget, when they initiated the action.

Or did they simply assume Singh would settle?

Perhaps this is why the BCA chose to sue Singh as an individual, rather than accepting an offer from the Guardian, the paper that printed Singh’s article. As Singh notes:

“Initially The Guardian newspaper tried its best to settle the matter out of court by making what seemed to be a very generous offer. There was an opportunity for the BCA to write a 500 word response to my article to be published in The Guardian, allowing the BCA to present its evidence. There was also the offer of a clarification in the ‘Corrections and Clarification’ column, which would have pointed out: ‘The British Chiropractic have told us they have substantial evidence supporting the claim they make on their website that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. (Beware the spinal trap, page 26, April 19).’ Unfortunately, the BCA rejected these offers and moreover made it absolutely clear that it was not suing The Guardian, but rather it was suing me personally.”

The BCA’s action, in moving forward with their suit against an individual journalist, contradicts another claim made in their recent statement:

“In the spirit of a wider scientific debate, and having taken appropriate professional advice, the BCA has decided that free speech would be best facilitated by releasing details of research that exists to support the claims which Dr. Singh stated were bogus.”

I wonder why they didn’t make that determination 15 months ago, when the Guardian offered a public forum (and one likely to receive far more public exposure than their statement) in which to do just that.

Instead, they chose to file a legal action against Singh, demanding instead that he issue “a retraction of his baseless allegations and an apology.”

I’m betting they were mighty surprised when Singh opted to stand by what he wrote, and declined to capitulate to their demands. Singh writes of his decision:

“…the article was about an issue of public interest, namely childhood health and the effectiveness of particular treatments for some serious conditions. Hence, I was not prepared to apologise for an article that I still believed was important for parents to read, and which I believed was accurate and legally defensible.

“The final reason for fighting on was that I knew that I was able to devote the time, money and energy required for a long legal battle. Most journalists would have been forced to back down and settle under the pressure of a libel threat, so it seemed that I had a duty to fight on in light of my privileged position. I knew when started, and I still know now, that this legal fight will be horrendously expensive and draining, but it will not destroy me.”

The BCA’s costs for litigation will ultimately be borne by its member chiropractors. Singh will bear the cost of his defense (and penalties, should the BCA’s claim succeed on appeal). Moreover, he has declined offers from supporters to contribute to a fund for his defense, and has suggested they instead donate either to Sense About Science or to a fund he hopes to establish for journalists unable to bear the financial burden of defending themselves against such actions.

UPDATE: On April 15, 2010, the BCA dropped its case against Simon Singh in the wake of an April 1 ruling by the Court of Appeal that Singh’s article could be construed as “fair comment,” which would have allowed Singh to continue his appeal.