A weekly newspaper has been rapped for publishing the medical condition of a teenage girl whose friend was raising funds for research into the illness.
The girl’s parents complained about an article in the Camberley News and Mail in March this year which identified their daughter as having the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis or ME.
The article reported on the fundraising efforts of a 13-year-old girl selling cakes at a farmers’ market to raise funds for ME Research UK because her friend had the illness, and included a photo of the two girls with their names.
But in an adjudication published today, the Press Complaints Commission ruled that the story had breached the privacy of the girl suffering from the condition.
Her parents said they had been happy for their daughter to be photographed but had not consented to the publication of her name and photograph in connection with details of her medical condition.
They said they had previously chosen to inform people of her condition only when necessary, so the article had therefore caused great distress.
The newspaper apologised to the complainants, saying it had intended only to support the girls’ fundraising efforts and its photographer, who had attended the event, had been given information about the child’s condition by her friend and had not realised that it was confidential.
It said the complainants’ daughter had been present when this information was disclosed and the photographer had then spoken briefly to a woman he took to be the girl’s mother, who had commented that she would soon be taken home as she tired easily.
A number of other people had been present, and the photographer had received no impression that the child’s condition was considered to be confidential.
But the complainants denied that the photographer had spoken to them or that their daughter had been present when the information regarding her medical condition was disclosed.
In addition to its apology, the newspaper offered to make a donation to charity, but the complainants did not accept that this was sufficient.
The complaint was upheld by the PCC which said that Clauses 3 (Privacy) and 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice had been breached as the article intruded into a child’s private life.
In its adjudication, the watchdog said the newspaper had an obligation to obtain the complainants’ explicit consent for the publication of these details about their daughter and it was concerned to note that the photographer had apparently acted on an assumption that the child’s condition was not confidential, without verifying this.
Charlotte Dewar, head of complaints and pre-publication services, said: “The publication of medical details poses a serious potential for intrusion, and the issue of consent is critical.
“In this instance, there was an additional factor: the information related to a child, who receives additional protection from intrusion under the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
“The Commission accepted that the newspaper had intended only to support a local cause, but its failure to obtain proper consent from the child’s parents for the publication of information about her condition led to an unfortunate breach of the Code.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I am shocked by this story, not at the PCC’s decision but at the parents going there in the first place.
Surely along with raising funds for the illness it is important to raise awareness too, by saying they will not disclose the fact their daughter has the illness almost implies they are ashamed or embarrassed by it.
Many people campaign to discard the stigma attached to illnesses both mental and physical and I am suprised that the parents cannot openly admit their daughter suffers with it, did the daughter have a choice in this issue?
Sounds like yet another case of political correctness gone mad, and another hurdle for photographers and reporters to cross when trying to publish a local positive story!!!
Report this comment
And here we all are paying attention to trainees covering Crown Court or dodgy reader letters and it was the harmless-looking bake sale photo on page 19 wot dun it. Very unlucky for the paper concerned but a good lesson.
Report this comment
I really feel sorry for the paper on this one – surely the PCC should have used a little common sense and chucked out the complaint? The paper clearly acted in good faith and it is difficult to see how they could have done any better.
Report this comment
Perhaps if a trained journalist had written the piece rather than the photographer perhaps they would have double checked the facts.
Interesting to read the attempted defence of the paper by two of the posters here. The child is 13, so perhaps the family are not “ashamed or embarrassed” but merely want to protect their child from the attitudes of others. As for PCC using common sense, if the editor didn’t why should the PCC?
The Editors’ Code is hardly secret and if hacks and wannabe hacks can’t be bothered to read it they only have themselves to blame when a member of the public does.
As laudable as the paper’s aim may have been that doesn’t excuse a lack of professionalism.
Report this comment
In my experience (having dealt with a few PCC cases), the problem often starts because the paper simply refuses to accept it could possibly have been in the wrong and as a result, what could have been a hand shake, bunch of flowers and an apology turns in to a long drawn out battle simply because the families feel they have been treated without respect.
Report this comment
I feel for everyone involved with this case. Unfortunately, until the stigma, ridicule, trivialisation and discrimination associated with ME diminish greatly, I understand the parents’ concern to keep the diagnosis of their daughter’s illness confidential. Not a case of “PC gone mad”, but of the necessity to protect their child’s future. Yes, it would be nice if they felt able to campaign against the stigma of ME by being open about it but, having found it necessary to conceal that information about myself for 30 years, they have my full understanding.
Report this comment
Jeez. Seen it all now.
That’s what you get for trying to help someone in this game.
Don’t bother in future.
And shockingly, an apology plus a charity donation wasn’t even enough to shut their moaning.
Report this comment