Correspondence
Conflicts of Interest and Libel Action
N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1919-1920June 13, 2002
- Article
To the Editor:
As part of the debate about the safety of calcium-channel blockers in the late 1990s, the Journal published an article in which reference was made to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program (The Fifth Estate) about Health Canada's review of calcium-channel antagonists.1 The article repeated the false allegation on The Fifth Estate program that an academic advisor to Health Canada “had financial relationships with manufacturers of calcium-channel antagonists,” raising “an important question about physicians' objectivity in assessing the safety of drugs.” The article did not consider it necessary to mention that, as one of the academic advisors to Health Canada, I initiated a libel action against The Fifth Estate for defamatory and malicious reporting. Nor did the article mention that none of my research was reviewed as part of this “study.” I won my libel action, and the damages awarded to me were the highest in the history of Canada against the media; the ruling was upheld by all the appellate courts.2
The repeat of The Fifth Estate's false allegation in the Journal lent credibility to the program and had a very negative effect on my reputation as a highly respected clinician-scientist. The trial judge listed numerous examples of the damage The Fifth Estate program had caused to my reputation, including the article in the Journal. Justice Douglas Cunningham specifically stated in the judgment, “If all of this wasn't enough, Dr. Leenen had to read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 1998 which once again, because of this program, called his integrity into question.”
My successful libel action against The Fifth Estate traveled through all levels of the courts in Canada to the highest court in the country — the Supreme Court of Canada. On February 7, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and my ordeal has finally ended.
2 ReferencesFrans H.H. Leenen, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4W7, Canada
fleenen@ottawaheart.ca 1
Stelfox HT ,Chua G ,O'Rourke K ,Detsky AS . Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998;338:101-106
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Ontario Reports. Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. Superior Court of Justice, Cunningham D, April 20, 2000, 48 O.R. (3d), 656-735, 2000; Court of Appeal for Ontario, McMurtry CJO, Catzman and Austin JJA, June 12, 2001, 54 O.R. (3d), 612-626, 2001. Ottawa, Ont.: Supreme Court of Canada, February 7, 2002. (Accessed May 23, 2002, at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/judgments/index_e.html.)
Author/Editor Response
Dr. Detsky replies:
To the Editor: As senior author of the article in question, I am taking the liberty of responding to Dr. Leenen's letter. He is correct in noting that an episode of The Fifth Estate was one of the events that motivated my colleagues and me to pursue research on conflicts of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. By performing this study, we did not mean to imply that the allegations made on that program were true. We apologize to Dr. Leenen if it appeared to him and others that by simply stating that this program motivated us, we were endorsing its conclusions or methods. We certainly did not intend to embarrass him.
I believe there is an important lesson to be derived from Dr. Leenen's experience. Academic physicians (or anyone, for that matter) should be very cautious about appearing on an investigative news segment. It is impossible to know the reporter's true agenda or how the interview will be edited.
Allan S. Detsky, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada
detsky@utstat.toronto. edu - Citing Articles (1)
Citing Articles
1
Alexander Tsai. (2005) A Review of: “Jerome P. Kassirer. 2004. On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health ”. American Journal of Bioethics 5:2, 66-68
CrossRef
