Complaint
A listener complained that the programme鈥檚 treatment of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee report on assisted dying showed evidence of bias, by not using the聽 term 鈥渁ssisted suicide鈥 (as used by the Committee), by making no reference to adverse outcomes of laws allowing assisted dying in other countries and by favouring a guest who spoke in support of such laws over a guest who opposed them.聽 The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
The programme鈥檚 substantive coverage of the Committee鈥檚 report began with an interview with the 大象传媒鈥檚 Medical Editor in which he gave an account of the report which accurately reflected the Committee鈥檚 assessment of the impact of laws on assisted dying in other jurisdictions. Coverage continued with two interviews later in the programme, first with an opponent of legislating for assisted dying in which he was able to set out the main concerns about such legislation irrespective of the time allotted to him, and secondly with a supporter of assisted dying who was appropriately challenged in relation to the potentially adverse consequence of legalising it.聽 As to the terms 鈥渁ssisted dying鈥 and 鈥渁ssisted suicide鈥, the ECU noted that the presenter had used the latter during the second interview and that the Committee had used both terms, but considered that the choice of terminology was immaterial in the context a broad-brush treatment of the topic.
Not upheld