Protest against electro-convulsive therapy

Review from the Office of the Ombudsman | English Services


Protest on Parliament Hill against electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) (Complaint from Sue Clark-Wittenberg, Director, International Campaign to Ban Electroshock)

You wrote to complain about a story on concerning the protest against electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) that you staged on Parliament Hill last May. You felt that it was “unfair and biased” in that, in your view, it did not allow sufficient space and time to opponents of the therapy.

Mary Sheppard, Executive Producer of CBC News Online (now, replied that appropriate coverage was given to both sides of the controversy, although she acknowledged that the story did contain an error: the wrong first name of one of the antiECT researchers.

You rejected her explanation and asked for a review.

We should first take note of the relevant guidelines set out in CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.

Under Principles, we find:

Information programs must reflect established journalistic principles:

The information conforms with reality and is not in any way misleading or false. This demands not only careful and thorough research but a disciplined use of language and production techniques, including visuals.

The information is truthful, not distorted to justify a conclusion. Broadcasters do not take advantage of their power to present a personal bias.

The information reports or reflects equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view; it deals fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues and events.

Application of these principles will achieve the optimum objectivity and balance that must characterize the CBC’s information programs.

We also find, under Range of Opinions, this:

A journalistic organization, to achieve balance and fairness, should ensure that the widest possible range of views is expressed. Almost any opinion may contain a grain of truth that helps to illuminate the whole truth. But proper account must also be taken of the weight of opinion which holds these views and its significance or potential significance. The challenging of accepted orthodoxies should be reported but so also should the established views be clearly put.

The key principle is that fairness and balance is not a mathematical exercise. Journalists have to take into account the relative weight of opinion on various sides and, without injecting their own opinions, reflect that weight in the report.

My reading on the subject, while indicating a noteworthy and aggressive body of opinion against ECT, shows that the bulk of medical opinion appears to favour the view that ECT, properly used, has substantial therapeutic benefits. There appears no doubt that there have been negative outcomes— although some of those “outcomes” have been reported anecdotally rather than scientifically. That is true of virtually any medical procedure I am aware of and has to be balanced against the likelihood of positive outcomes.

The journalist’s job is to reflect those differing opinions in an appropriate manner.

Rather than ignoring the claims of those opposed to ECT, the story reported those views, not only yours but also those of a psychiatrist in the field. The story also pointed out that the broad opinion in respected medical circles is opposite.


The report attempted in a brief time to point out the differing opinions on the subject. The story did not take sides, but accurately reflected the substance of the debate. With the exception of the mistake already acknowledged, the story was well within the parameters of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman