November 13, 2007

Stem cells, apologies, the press and public ethics

I haven't commented on the whole stem cell clinic issue that so rightly concerns so many Bermudians, and the outside looking in, but I've been meaning to; although not really from the angle that has received the coverage thus far - but the case study of private conflicts of public officials that it provides.

But on Friday the Mid Ocean News ran an apology to Stemedica for two quotes that were included in their stories on the establishment of a stem cell clinic in Bermuda by Dr. Brown.

When I first read those stories in the Mid Ocean, and saw the two quotes that it was a 'sham' and looked like a 'money laundering expedition' I thought 'Oh, that could be a problem', particularly because those two quotes didn't appear at the centre of the very concerning issues that this whole initiative raises:

1) Stem cell science is still in its infancy and experimentation on humans is controversial.
2) Bermuda is not a jurisdiction currently suited for this kind of healthcare business, from either a regulatory (there are none - which some think is the attraction) or an economic perspective (there is no infrastructure in place, nor a suitable labour pool).
3) Public officials practicing, but in particular expanding related private interests, in areas in which they are overseeing public policy is a concern.

Those issues and parts of the coverage aren't at all impacted by the apology.

Stemedica issued a press release yesterday on the apology, which has headed off legal action, but a release which I think tries to hook the Gazette into the apology in a way that isn't correct: by saying they received 'apologies from Bermudians Newspapers', emphasis on the plural 'apologies' and 'papers'.

Today, Stemedica Cell Technologies (“Stemedica”) received unequivocal apologies from Bermudian publications the Mid-Ocean News and The Royal Gazette online regarding unsubstantiated and pejorative remarks those publications had made about the company.

Not quite. There was one apology carried in two places. The Mid Ocean clearly apologised for the quotes at dispute, but The Royal Gazette ran their own series of articles on this which were not a part of the apology. They carried the Mid Ocean's apology in a box labeled 'Advertisement' from the Mid Ocean News.

The Bermuda Sun also published a series of stories on this that have not been challenged.

For that reason I think the 'Bermudian newspapers' quote is mischievous. The threat of a libel suit didn't apply to the Gazette's articles nor the Sun's, only two quotes in a Mid Ocean article.

I imagine that because the Mid Ocean News' website is a subsection of The Royal Gazette's website, Stemedica demanded the apology be carried there as well, and is now attempting to portray the Mid Ocean's apology as applicable to the Gazette's articles, when it is not.

One thing that I think people don't really understand (and some will never accept) is that The Royal Gazette and The Mid Ocean News are two different newspapers, run by different editorial staff with separate reporters. Yes, they're owned by the same holding company, but they operate independently of each other and don't cooperate on stories.

The big advantage that the Mid Ocean has is that they publish once a week, so they have more time to dig deeper into stories than the press outlets who have daily deadlines to meet can and so end up with the big scoops like the leaked Police files.

Bermuda is experiencing a renaissance in defamation law it seems, and in this case it's clear the apology was warranted. But serious concerns remain.

From my perspective, the UBP's Louise Jackson hit the angle that has been largely ignored thus far by the main stream media, which is that in addition to medical ethical and regulatory concerns, there are serious ones around public ethics.

We should be very concerned when the Premier, who is clearly the behind the scenes driver of health care policy as well as his other portfolios - as seen in today's coverage of the secret hospital meetings, is actively pursuing private interests in the field. In addition to closing the Medical Clinic which competed with his private one, he is now bringing a highly controversial and experimental medical clinic to an island which has neither the regulations (which he has total control over) or infrastructure for this.

That is an area which I'd like to see the press highlight, as much as the concerns over medical ethics and regulatory issues.

Posted by Christian S. Dunleavy