09/243
DECISION
Meeting 12 May 2009
Complaint 09/243
Complainant: A. Gilbey
Advertisement: Spinewave Wellness Centre
Complaint: The website advertisement commenced with:
“SPINEWAVE
WELLNESS • CENTRE
Specialist Chiropractor
Free Thinking Clinician
Dr Neil Bossenger
Specialising in Upper Cervical Care
Adults • Children • Neurological Cases”.
It also contained the following claims:
"We have helped adults and children with headaches and migraines, dizziness and
ringing ears, high blood pressure, stress related issues, sleeplessness, chronic pain,
depression, allergies, eczema, asthma, epilepsy, autism, chronic fatigue, eyesight
trouble, learning disorders, emotional instability... and more."
“Then it gets serious after a few years
Chronic neck and back pain … radiating pain down arm or leg … asthma … high
blood pressure ….infertility … …… stroke … cancer …death.”
Complainant, A. Gilbey, said:
“Type: Website
Where: Read details on the www site for this chiropractor
Who: Neil Bossenger, trading as Spinewave Wellness Centre
Product: Chiropractic
Complaint - Dear Sir/Madam,
2 09/243
I wish to complain about the World Wide Web advertisement for Spinewave Wellness
Centre (see http://www.spinewave.co.nz/)
On the above website, the chiropractor Neil Bossenger refers to himself using the
title Dr on three occasions. I believe this implies that he is a general medical
practitioner who also practices chiropracty. I do not believe this is the case. Further
more, if one clicks the link http/www.spinewave.co.nz/Contact_Spinewave.php one is
invited to email 'Dr Bossenger' with no reference at all to the fact he is a chiropractor.
He also refers to himself as a specialist chiropractor, when I believe he is actually an
ordinary chiropractor.
Mr Bossenger states he specialises in neurological cases. As far as I am aware,
Chiropractic has nothing to do with neurology. Further, he states, "We have helped
adults and children with headaches and migraines, dizziness and ringing ears, high
blood pressure, stress related issues, sleeplessness, chronic pain, depression,
allergies, eczema, asthma, epilepsy, autism, chronic fatigue, eyesight trouble,
learning disorders, emotional instability... and more." To me, this implies he has
cured these problems; I would like to know what evidence he has to support this
claim.
It is also implied that if you do not go to a chiropractor "then it could get serious after
a few years" resulting in serious illnesses such as cancer. This is untrue and scare
mongering. It also suggests he can treat problems of a serious nature. There is no
evidence to support any of those assertions.
Several complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK have recently
been upheld on this matter; see:
http://www.cap.org.uk/cap/advice_online/advice_online_database/Show+Entry.htm?
advice_online _id=488).”
The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant:
Therapeutic Services Advertising Code
Principle 2 - Advertisements should observe a high standard of social
responsibility particularly as consumers rely on therapeutic services for their
health and well-being.
Principle 3 - Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or
exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive
consumers, abuse the trust of or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers,
exploit the superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear.
The Advertiser, Spinewave Wellness Centre, said:
“
1. I am writing in response to the above complaint.
2. The website in question is that of Spinewave Wellness Centre, a chiropractic
practice that has been in operation for over 10 years. It is crystal clear on every
page of the website that it is a chiropractic practice, that we practice
3 09/243
chiropractic, and that we do not offer any other service that would imply we are
practitioners of medicine.
3. Before responding specifically to the details in the complaint, I would like to
give the Authority some background of the complainant. A. Gilbey has been on
a crusade against the chiropractic profession for some time now. His 2008
NZMJ article (NZMJ 25 July 2008, Vol 121 No 1278) centred on chiropractors
and other non medical health care professionals using the title "Dr". His
concerns were debunked in subsequent issues of the NZMT, and by Dr John.
Marwick from the Ministry of Health in subsequent days on National radio.
4. For more information on this, please refer to the response by Dr. Brian Kelly
(Complaint 09/120) to a motion put forward by the complainant who has lodged
similar complaints against other chiropractors. This implies that this complaint
is not against one individual "rogue chiropractor" leading with false advertising,
but rather a cause to further Gilbey's aforementioned crusade against the
chiropractic profession. In my mind, the more chiropractors he attempts to
lodge complaints against, the more he brings himself into disrepute.
5. One of Gilbey' s concerns raised in the 2008 medical journal article was that a
person seeking medical care from a practitioner who was not a registered
medical practitioner could lead to delays in appropriate treatment and "could
potentially lead to delays in seeking out mainstream medical care due to the
confusion of the practitioner". This is an interesting theory. However, we are not
aware of any complaint made to the Medical Council, or the Chiropractic Board,
of a patient who made an appointment with our practice, or any other
chiropractic practice in New Zealand, expecting to see a medical practitioner
and were misled into seeing a chiropractor. Moreover, I am not aware of a
patient seeking medical care and ending up in a dentist's office; or a patient
seeking medical care and ending up in a veterinarian's office. The latter two
professions also have the legal right to use the professional courtesy title "Dr".
6. Concerning "potential delays" in appropriate treatment: Please refer to point
415.
7. Gilbey is not a patient seeking health care with a medical practitioner and after
visiting our website mistook it for a medical practice.
8. Gilbey's reference to the Advertising Standards Authority in another country, in
this case the UK, is irrelevant.
9. The issue in question is one that would fall under the jurisdiction of the New
Zealand Chiropractic Board. Chiropractors are registered practitioners in New
Zealand, and have been so since 1960. The Chiropractic Board has clear
guidelines on the use of the title "Dr", and chiropractors are legally allowed to
do so. To our knowledge, the Ministry of Health has no concerns with this.
10. As far as Gilbey is aware, "chiropractic has nothing to do with neurology". It is
not uncommon for the lay person to believe that chiropractic is about nothing
more than backs and bones. Neurology is a fundamental part of chiropractic. If
the complainant were earnestly seeking chiropractic health care at our practice,
he would be well informed of the role of one's nervous system in healthy
4 09/243
function upon visitation and the information he would receive would not only be
congruent with the material on the website, but be of an exceptionally high
standard of social responsibility (Principle 2) as a patient's health and
safety is paramount.
11. To unmask the complainant's lack of awareness on this matter and hence poor
standing of argument against all chiropractors he has laid complaint to,
chiropractors have - for years now - been able to study in post-graduate
diplomate programs on neurology, such as that offered by the American
Chiropractic Neurology Board (www.acnb.org), or in post-graduate programs
on paediatrics such as the Diplomate in Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics
(www.icapediatrics.com). Some chiropractors take special interest in patients
with particular problems and hence add tremendous value to society by
supporting these individuals. Some chiropractors also take special interest in
particular techniques (with hours and hours of post-graduate study) that best
support patients and subsequently "advertise" themselves differently so the
public may know how to find them. This is the case with Spinewave Wellness
Centre where members of the public are, in fact, seeking a specific type of
chiropractic care. This does not, by any means, put other chiropractors in poor
light: It simply highlights which methods might support the patient best. Since
Gilbey is not of the chiropractic profession, nor is productively involved in the
chiropractic profession, he would not be aware of the differences between
chiropractors or their high level of education.
12. Gilbey's comments on the wording of "specialist" are acknowledged and the
website has been amended such that there is absolutely no confusion for the
public.
13. The website was not created by any advertising agency as it is an information
website and we take full responsibility for its content. The website and its
represented chiropractor do not lay claim to "curing" any condition as implied
by Gilbey. It states "we have helped" patients with certain conditions who have
responded favourably to chiropractic care and specific lifestyle advice. No
condition listed is fabricated, and is listed directly in relation to the testimony of
the patient on the "testimonials" webpage. In accordance with Rule 9 of the
Advertising Code of Ethics, these testimonials are "genuine, current and related
to the experience of the person giving it", verified by the patient's name,
address, phone number, signature, and photograph where appropriate on the
webpage.
14. It is common knowledge that stress and poor lifestyle choices have a negative
impact on one's health, and over a period of time this can translate into health
problems. It is part of a chiropractor's duty to inform the public of this
phenomenon but it is not intended to imply on the website that if you "do not go
to a chiropractor" "serious illnesses such as cancer" will result, as stated by
Gilbey. It is conceded how this might be misinterpreted by Gilbey as
"scaremongering" and thank him for his lay perspective on the matter. The
website has been amended accordingly.
15. There is no suggestion anywhere to say that chiropractors "treat" cancer or
"problems of a serious nature". In fact, it is a chiropractor's responsibility as a
health care provider to recognise signs and symptoms of cancer and make the
5 09/243
necessary medical referral immediately. In a testimonial by a client of …
Seaview Road, Remuera, an example of this exact and immediate action is
outlined. Should you require more information on policies and procedures,
these can be provided.
16. Your letter suggests that two codes may apply in this instance. I would like to
respond to these specifically:
Principle 2: Advertisements should observe a high standard of social
responsibility particularly as consumers rely on
therapeutic services for their well-being.
Response: The website does observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
Principle 3: Advertisements should not by implication, omission,
ambiguity or exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be
likely to mislead or deceive consumers, abuse the trust of
or exploit that lack of knowledge of consumers, exploit the
superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear.
Response: The website adheres to this principle and the necessary
changes have been made for the public's clarity (printout
enclosed).
17. In summary, the website has not misled a member of the public. It does not
contravene Principle 2 and 3 nor any other Principles of the Therapeutic
Services Advertising Code. I suggest the Authority sees the complaint in the
light and intention of the complainant, and suggest the complainant refer it to
the Chiropractic Board who is the appropriate authority to make a
determination on this. It is our view that it does not breach the Code of Ethics of
the Chiropractic Board as described under the Health Practitioners
Competency Assurance Act (HPCAA).
18. I look forward to your response.”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board read all the correspondence relevant to the complaint and a
copy of the advertisement. It noted that the Complainant, A. Gilbey, was of the view
that the advertisement was misleading where it referred to Neil Bossenger as “Dr”,
and also “Specialist Chiropracter”. Also that the claims such as “we have helped
adults and children with headaches and migraines, dizziness and ringing ears …”
etc, implied, in the Complainant’s view that there was a promise of curing those
conditions and a request for evidence to support those claims was made. Also, in
question was the implied claim, that if Chiropractic expertise was not sought early
on, “Then it gets serious after a few years” and the conditions listed below this
claim included “…stroke … death …cancer…”. This, in the Complainant’s view, was
scare-mongering.
6 09/243
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the advertisement with
regard to Principles 2 and 3 of the Therapeutic Services Advertising Code. This
required the Complaints Board to determine whether the website advertisement
contained anything which either directly, or by implication, was likely to deceive or
mislead consumers, and also, whether it observed a high standard of social
responsibility.
As a preliminary matter, the Complaints Board noted the advice received from the
Advertiser that self-regulatory amendments had been made to the website
advertisement. In particular these were:
The word "specialist" had been removed to ensure that there was absolutely no
confusion for the public.
The website advertisement had been modified to ensure that any implication, as
suggested by the Complainant, that if you "do not go to a chiropractor" "serious
illnesses such as cancer" will result, had been modified to ensure clearer
communication to the consumer.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled that the complaint had been settled with
regard to these two issues and it was not required to make a finding under the
Advertising Codes.
The Complaints Board was satisfied that the testimonials used in the website
advertisement met the requirements of the Advertising Codes, as they were
"genuine, current and related to the experience of the person giving it", and verified
by the patient's name, address, phone number, signature, and the photograph,
where appropriate, was on the webpage.
The Complaints Board said the Advertisement did not imply cure where it said “we
have helped adults and children with headaches and migraines, dizziness and
ringing ears …” and that the claim was not misleading and met the high standard of
social responsibility require by the Therapeutic Services Advertising Code.
Addressing the issue of the use of the term “Dr” or “Doctor” in advertisements for
Chiropractors, the Complaints Board referred to Decision 09/120 where it had ruled
in relation to this same issue:
“The Complaints Board also noted advice received from the Advertiser
where they said that chiropractors are legally allowed to call themselves
“Dr”. It also noted where the Advertiser advised that the Chiropractic Board
had guidelines on the use of the title “Dr”.
The Complaints Board was of the view that in the context of the
advertisement, which contained numerous references to chiropractors and
chiropractory, consumers would not be mislead into thinking that the
doctors listed on the page were general medical practitioners, rather than
chiropractors, as suggested by the Complainant. Accordingly, the
Complaints Board said that the advertisement was not in breach of
Principle 3 of the Therapeutic Services Advertising Code.”
7 09/243
The Complaints Board also said that the advertisement before it was not misleading
meeting the requirement of Principle 3, and that it also observed a high standard of
social responsibility, as required by Principle 2 of the Therapeutic Services
Advertising Code, and accordingly was not in breach of that provision.
The Complaints Board ruled that in the light of the self-regulatory action taken by the
Advertiser, the matter was Settled.
Decision: Complaint Settled