Complaint
The programme included coverage of a charity which provides an anti-choking device called LifeVac to children’s facilities, featuring interviews with the founder of the charity, a woman who runs a nursery in Kent and the Europe Director of the company which makes the device. A listener complained that the programme gave a misleading impression by not including the information that there is “no legitimate evidence†that LifeVac can help people who are choking and that it and similar devices “are not recommended by any medical organizations or resuscitation expertsâ€. He also argued that a reference in the programme to the device being “a±è±è°ù´Ç±¹±ð»å†by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) implied medical endorsement, whereas the MHRA’s concern is confined to whether products meet relevant regulatory requirements. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of accuracy.
Outcome
The ECU accepted that the programme should have reflected the view of relevant and informed groups such as the and the that the use of anti-choking devices such as LifeVac is not recommended and if they are used, it should only be after other established choking rescue protocols have failed. Without that information listeners would have been likely to form a misleading impression about the state of medical opinion on the safety and effectiveness of the device. The ECU also accepted that the reference to MHRA approval would have tended to reinforce such an impression.
Upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the management of Â鶹ԼÅÄ England and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.