Complaint
A listener complained that the programme’s treatment of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee report on assisted dying showed evidence of bias, by not using the term “assisted suicide” (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. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ±«Óătv’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
The programme’s substantive coverage of the Committee’s report began with an interview with the ±«Óătv’s Medical Editor in which he gave an account of the report which accurately reflected the Committee’s 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. As to the terms “assisted dying” and “assisted suicide”, 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