Complaint
This article concerned a practitioner who believed she had found a method of continuing her practice which was compliant with Covid regulations. A reader complained that she was incorrectly identified as a chiropodist, and that it was irresponsible to feature an unregulated practitioner treating clients’ feet in non-sterile conditions. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, and on harm and offence in relation to safety.
Outcome
The article had been incorrect in identifying its subject as a chiropodist, and its text was changed to reflect this before the matter came to the attention of the ECU. The ECU considered this action sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint in relation to accuracy.Â
In relation to safety, the expectation underlying the Guidelines is that ´óÏó´«Ã½ output will normally observe safe practice (unless there is editorial justification for doing otherwise) and will not encourage imitation of unsafe practice. In this instance, the photograph illustrating the treatment showed the practitioner wearing a facemask and visor, which was consistent with safe practice; and, as the text of the article did not specify what kind of treatment she was administering or any steps she might have taken to ensure she was operating in a clinically responsible manner, the ECU thought it unlikely that readers would have taken it as a guide to safe practice. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
Resolved/not upheld