Re: Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case
When looking to the Charlie Gard case, we must appreciate the influence the media had on the situation. Where there might exist a gap between public knowledge and an organisation like the NHS, the media often serves as the bridge. In doing so, there is a duty to report in an impartial manner.
When ethical dilemmas arise, however, they are seldom reported impartially. As a medical student, we cover ethics: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice are all cornerstones in medical ethics can conflict with one another and cause a shift in public opinion. The recent case of Charlie Gard is a perfect example, with news headings such as ‘UK doctors refuse Vatican offer to take Charlie Gard’. Understandably, in an emotional case like this, as highlighted by Clare Dyer, different angles like this inevitably exist. However, when the public send in death threats to health care workers at Great Ormond Street Hospital based on information from the media, we must review the influence that reporting has on the trust between the public and healthcare workers.
The Charlie Gard case is just one instance of what could be many more skewed representations in the media of the healthcare provided by doctors and nurses in the NHS. The British Social Attitudes Survey reported a drop in levels of trust in healthcare professionals from 30 percent in 2002 to 21 percent in 2014, with negative media reporting as a possible influencer in individuals with no recent personal contact with the NHS. In a system, dedicated to the British public, strained now more than ever by budget cuts, a shortage of doctors and lack of adequate resources, public trust is imperative, which can be helped or hindered by media reporting.
Rapid Response:
Re: Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case
When looking to the Charlie Gard case, we must appreciate the influence the media had on the situation. Where there might exist a gap between public knowledge and an organisation like the NHS, the media often serves as the bridge. In doing so, there is a duty to report in an impartial manner.
When ethical dilemmas arise, however, they are seldom reported impartially. As a medical student, we cover ethics: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice are all cornerstones in medical ethics can conflict with one another and cause a shift in public opinion. The recent case of Charlie Gard is a perfect example, with news headings such as ‘UK doctors refuse Vatican offer to take Charlie Gard’. Understandably, in an emotional case like this, as highlighted by Clare Dyer, different angles like this inevitably exist. However, when the public send in death threats to health care workers at Great Ormond Street Hospital based on information from the media, we must review the influence that reporting has on the trust between the public and healthcare workers.
The Charlie Gard case is just one instance of what could be many more skewed representations in the media of the healthcare provided by doctors and nurses in the NHS. The British Social Attitudes Survey reported a drop in levels of trust in healthcare professionals from 30 percent in 2002 to 21 percent in 2014, with negative media reporting as a possible influencer in individuals with no recent personal contact with the NHS. In a system, dedicated to the British public, strained now more than ever by budget cuts, a shortage of doctors and lack of adequate resources, public trust is imperative, which can be helped or hindered by media reporting.
Competing interests: No competing interests