Doctor’s complaint upheld

Press, 9 December 1988, Page 16

Doctor’s complaint upheld

PA Wellington The Press Council has upheld a complaint by Dr Rene de Jongh of Wanganui against the “Wanganui Chronicle.” On July 9, in a column entitled “Case in Point,” a staff journalist, Mr Dave Laurence, recorded that, while ill with the flu, he received a card reading: “Get well soon, R. de Jongh.” The columnist added that he knew the card wasn’t from Dr Rene de Jongh. For one thing it was too brief, and for another it was kindly. In a letter to the editor, Dr de Jongh said the reference confirmed his opinion, previously expressed to the editor, that the columnist was conducting a campaign

against the medical profession at Wanganui Hospital.

He first meant to ignore the comment as unworthy of attention, but reaction of members of the public he treated in the hospital’s emergency department obliged him to take up the matter. He asked for publication of an unqualified apology for the implication that in his professional conduct to patients, he was less than kind.

The editor replied that he was sorry what was intended as a jocular remark caused Dr de Jongh concern, but the suggestion that the columnist was conducting a campaign against the medical profession at the hospital was absurd. The

“Chronicle” would not allow such a thing to happen. The item in the column did not mention Dr de Jongh’s attitude to patients and cast no reflection on his attitude to patients. In view of this, his request for a public apology could not be met. Dr de Jongh then complained to the Press Council that the published item was a slur on his professional conduct, and said he rejected the editor’s reasons for failing to apologise for “that libellous remark.” The editor told the council that the weekly column, written by a senior journalist, sought to bring an entertaining aspect to news of the week, sometimes in acid tones,

sometimes unashamedly complimentary, but mostly tongue-in-cheek.

The column often contained material unflattering to the writer and even to the “Chronicle” itself. The reference to Dr de Jongh was plainly in the tongue-in-cheek category and should be read as it was published, not as Dr de Jongh interpreted it.

The editor said it was nonsense to suggest the “Chronicle” adopted a persistent anti-doctor stand, as alleged by Dr de Jongh in a letter to the Press Council. No other member of the profession expressed any concerns about the "Chronicle,” which enjoyed an excellent relationship with, the local medical fraternity.

The council, in its decision, said it accepted the “Chronicle” had, in fact, not adopted an “antidoctor” stand. The reference in the column to the card, which the writer knew had been sent by another person and not by Dr de Jongh, was probably meant to be light-hearted. However, in view of Dr de Jongh’s expressed concern that the reference drew unfavourable comment from patients, the newspaper should have been prepared at least to publish his view of the matter, with or without apology. Such a simple redress could easily have put the matter right. The complaint was therefore upheld.