Opinion - News Analysis   

When readers need an independent assessment

K. NARAYANAN

Some time last year, when the Editor-in-Chief met the chiefs of bureau to discuss their work, one point he emphasised was that reporters should be careful with medical stories. They should verify all information and see that claims of corporate or private hospitals or of individual doctors were not blown up. News Editors/Bureau Chiefs could hold up stories for checking, if needed.

In my column on February 5, 2007, I had stressed the need for care and caution in dealing with medical issues. Medical practitioners made claims and offered theories they wished to be publicised. The general perception among readers was that The Hindu would not publish any details that it had not verified. This has to be borne in mind when dealing with all stories but more so when it comes to medical subjects.

* * * 

A recent instance shows these suggestions have not had the desired impact. A report in one of the editions asserted: “a new angioplasty technique has been developed” at a local hospital. The consultant interventional cardiologist said at a press conference that he had pioneered the technique of radial/ulnar angioplasty and had been using it for three months. He highlighted the benefits of the procedure, “which could make tremendous change in the field of angioplasty.”

Here was a story that I think should have been held over to check the claims made — a pioneering technique, its various benefits and the tremendous change it marked. Were all these justified? The news desk responded that it was not feasible or practicable especially at district centres to get a second opinion or expert comment. They needed time, expertise, or, contacts were not available. In this case, the cardiologist had released a signed statement at the press conference at which four other doctors were present.

These are not extenuating circumstances. It is the duty of a journalist, whether reporter or a desk person, to ask questions, not accept wholesale whatever is dished out. This was not a major developing, breaking news story that needed immediate publication. Nothing would have happened if it had been held over (except for a possible protest from the parties concerned!) When the district reporter does not have the resources, he should alert the bureau chief or news editor to the unverified claims in the report.

My enquiries showed that the procedure did have the benefits claimed. And it had been in use in Chennai for over two years. With the Internet and the available telecommunication facilities, it would not have been difficult to ferret out this information. In all such stories, an essential ingredient is an assessment by an independent doctor, preferably from a government hospital, of the significance or otherwise of the claims made. This will help readers evaluate the points in the story.

* * * 

Another news item offered “good news for those suffering from morbid obesity.” “Bariatrics or obesity treatment in the State has passed a milestone with the introduction of bypass surgery. Excelling the hospitals of Mumbai and Delhi, a couple of hospitals in the State have successfully conducted gastric bypass operations. Leading among them is the one at … which made local history by treating a 173-kg man through gastric bypass … Surgeon … claimed that gastric surgery was a new phenomenon … Gastric bypass was the only option for extreme cases of obesity.”

In medical and legal reporting, hyperbole has no place or defence. In this report, apart from questions of fact, there are quite a few expressions open to challenge. “Milestone”, “leading among them”, “excelling hospitals of Mumbai and Delhi” are unsubstantiated and unverified assertions that have no place here. What is “morbid obesity”? “Only option for obesity” — was this crosschecked? Did the reporter know that there are surgeons who do not recommend this procedure because of possible complications? What could have been attempted was a general story on the problem of obesity, its prevalence in the State, the options available, the cost, possible complications and so on. The work of the local hospital could have been highlighted in this story.

* * * 

What follows is not a medical story, but one relating to a medical problem. A reader (I have kept out all names and identities, on purpose) was intrigued by a photo caption: “A woman with her three-year-old deformed child, whose head weighs 5 kg.” This weight was also mentioned in the accompanying report. How can the weight of the head or any organ be given unless it is dismembered, asked the reader. The question was passed on to the Bureau Chief who asked the reporter to respond. The answer was that the Chief Minister (the report was on his engagements in the town) examined the medical records and declared that the head weighed 5 kg — noted solemnly and reproduced by all journalists present. Why didn’t the oddity strike anyone?

* * * 

There was an interesting reaction to a Xinhua story that appeared on the “Newscape” page some days ago. It said a Chinese hospital had successfully transplanted a heart, liver, and kidney into one patient, the first such operation in the country. The 47-year-old female patient had been diagnosed with uraemia and liver cancer. While planning kidney and liver transplants, the doctors found she had dilated cardiomyopathy and needed a new heart.

A consultant urologist-transplant surgeon wondered whether the news had been approved by The Hindu medical team (I had to tell him that there was no such team!). He said the presence of cancer is a contraindication for any kind of transplant, as the immunosuppressants given after the surgery would help in the spread of cancer. A transplant for such a patient is ethically incorrect, he said. I could find no way to get a clarification from Xinhua. A transplant surgeon I know explained that in such cases the organ affected by cancer is removed, and after ensuring that there is no spread, the transplant is done.

The surgeon who raised the issue said a 2-3 year wait is needed to ensure that cancer cells are not in circulation and transplant can be done only if there is no recurrence. With immunosuppressants, even if there is one cancer cell, it can become full blown cancer. This, he said, is the conclusion of a well-known study from the west.

That reinforces the point from where this began — that medical stories should be complete and carefully verified and that cutting corners for whatever reason, including competitive pressures, is impermissible.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Manoeuvring for advantage
The return of realism?
India must return to Eurasian energy game
When readers need an independent assessment
Dos and don’ts for schools in China
Pakistan: more of the same?
Obama vs McCain: who would be the winner?
Fuel price hike
Shameful attitude
R2P
Education Bill
Valentine’s Day

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu