Panorama: The Menopause Industry Uncovered, BBC One, 30 September 2024

Complaint

Solicitors representing Newson Health Ltd and Dr Louise Newson, who figured in the latter part of this programme, complained of inaccuracy, bias and unfairness towards their clients.  In particular, they objected to:

 the assertion that prescribing more than 100 mcg of oestrogen is inherently dangerous;

  1. the omission of the “detailed clinic letters” sent by their clients to patients;
  2. a failure to distinguish between natural and synthetic forms of oestrogen in clinical practice;
  3. a misleading impression that the British Menopause Society (BMS) was “akin” to a regulatory body;
  4. an unfair impression that their clients have a prevailing motive of financial gain;
  5. an association of their clients with dietary supplements and wellness products.

They further complained that the unfair and misleading impressions created by the programme had impaired their client’s ability to conduct business, thus adversely affecting the health and welfare of patients, actual and prospective.

Outcome

Noting that its function was not to reach its own conclusions on clinical and medical issues but to assess the programme’s compliance with the BBC’s editorial standards, the ECU found as follows.

  1. The programme did not make the assertion complained of, but did legitimately reflect the views of relevant experts and advisory bodies on the possible risks associated with high doses of oestrogen.
  2. It was unnecessary to reflect the “detailed clinic letters” sent to patients because the level of information provided to patients was not subjected to criticism in the programme.
  3. Though the complainants did not clearly identify the relevance of the distinction between natural and synthetic forms of oestrogen, their concern appeared to relate to the levels of oestrogen prescribed routinely to women receiving the contraceptive pill.  As non-menopausal women fell outside the programme’s purview, the ECU did not consider this point of complaint applicable.
  4. The complainants’ concern about the impression given of the BMS appeared to arise from the programme’s statement “Panorama can reveal the British Menopause Society has stripped Dr Newson of her specialist accreditation because of concerns around high dose prescribing”.  However, the programme did not describe the BMS as a regulatory body or imply that it exercised regulatory powers – and, because the programme also included a statement from Newsom Health Ltd which made clear the BMS was a charity, not a regulatory body, the ECU saw no likelihood of viewers forming the impression complained of.
  5. The impression of motivation by financial gain was said by the complainants to arise from a section of the programme in which a patient showed the presenter the email she had received from Newson Health after reporting her concerns about the effects of her treatment, to which the presenter responded “I mean, the thing is you’ve detailed the tough time you’ve been having and you get almost a pro forma back about costs”.  In the ECU’s judgement viewers would have understood the issue here to be the adequacy or otherwise of Newson Health’s response to the patient’s reported concerns, and would not have seen an implication that Newson Health systematically prioritised financial gain over the wellbeing of patients.
  6. Though the marketing of dietary supplements and wellness products to menopausal women was one of the areas of concern explored by the programme, it was confined within the first part and not discussed in connection with the complainants’ clients.  The ECU therefore did not accept that the programme created the impression of an association between them.

As to the putative impact of the programme on actual or prospective patients, the ECU noted that it is part of the remit of the BBC, as set out in its Royal Charter, to “act in the public interest”, and considered the subject of the care of women with menopause undoubtedly raised issues of public interest.  In the ECU’s judgement, the programme served the public interest by adopting a responsible and impartial approach to a matter on which opinion is divided.

Not upheld