Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Reason, 'Not Censorship
In the controversy which has arisen
over the broadcasts of Mr. Max Stem
ler on diphtheria immunisation, the
suggestion has been made that the Fed
eral Government should intervene to
prevent a discussion which tends to
impede public health policy. It is ad
mittedly unfortunate that a lay prac
titioner should take upon himself the
heavy responsibility of attempting to
dissuade parents from a course which
is deliberately advised by the Public
Health Department and has the back
ing of a very great majority of the
medical profession, but the silencing of
an unorthodox critic is not the best
means of maintaining confidence in
public health administration. The use
of the gag always raises a suspicion
that censorship is designed to stifle
criticism which is difficult to answer.
Such suspicion would in this case be
unjustified. Mr. Stemler is a clever,
if tedious and often illogical, contro
versialist, but he is opposing the
weight of scientific opinion and his
case can be completely answered. The
State Health Officer at Newcastle (Dr.
Shannon) took the trouble some time
ago to reply to Mr. Stemler at consider
able length, and his statements were
printed in the "Newcastle Morning
Herald" alongside those of his critic.
After a considerable interval this has
been followed by a" broadcast by Dr.
Wallace, Senior Medical Officer of
Health at Sydney.
This, and not censorship, is the cor
rect procedure. No doubt it is distress
ing to public health officers to have to
waste time on a controversy which from
their point of view is as edifying as a
discussion whether the world is round
or flat, but public education on health
matters is part of their function, and
they should not seek the easy way of
ignoring or trying to silence their
critics. Nor should the Government
permit censorship to take the place of
reason. If difference of opinion on
medical development is to be driven
underground, the right of free speech
will have been severely encroached upon.
Authoratative statements by the heads
of the public health services and by the
British Medical Association would
quickly have Put the anti-immunisa
tion propaganda in its true perspective.
They should have been made long ago.
$