BCA v. Simon Singhメモ 2010/02/23

BCA v Simon Singh裁判の公判前聴取について:
England’s most senior judge today said he was “baffled” by the British Chiropractic Association’s (BCA) defamation suit against science writer Simon Singh.

Presiding at the appeal court in London today in a pre-trial hearing on the meaning of words in a 2008 article by Singh criticising chiropractic treatments, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case.

“The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.

He continued: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money, whether it be from Dr Singh’s funds or the funds of BCA subscribers.”

He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.

“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?”

However, Lord Judge stressed that his comments would not affect the judgment of the case before the Court of Appeal.

英国最上位の裁判官が英国カイロプラクティック協会(BCA)のサイエンスライターSimon Singhに対する名誉既存訴訟に困惑していると述べた。

カイロプラクティック治療を批判したSimon Singhの2008年の記事中の単語の意味についてのロンドン上訴裁判所での公判前前聴取の議長をつとめる高等法院王座部主席裁判官は、この裁判の不自然さに悩んでいると述べた。

「権利を守る機会が利用されなかった。この裁判が終われば、Dr. SinghもしくはBCAのいずれかが莫大な裁判費用を負担することになる。」




[Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case (2010/02/23) on IndexOnCensorShip]

Adrienne Page QC, representing Simon Singh, said it was wrong of the BCA to claim that Singh implied it “knowingly” promoted treatments it knew to be ineffective.
“The least likely explanation [of the article] is that the BCA cynically and dishonestly engaged in peddling remedies it knew were of no value,” Page told the court.

Simon Singhを弁護するAdrienne Page QC(勅選弁護士)は、効果がないと知っている治療法を知った上で宣伝したという意味でSinghが使ったというBCAの主張が間違っていると述べた。「この記事の説明は、"BCAが効果がないと知られている治療法の販売にシニカルかつ不誠実に関与した"というものだ」

Representing the BCA, Heather Rogers QC said the organisation is a respectable one that takes its reputation seriously.
Rogers argued that the use of the word “bogus” suggested that the BCA knew some of the claims made for chiropractic to be false.

BCAの弁護人であるHeather Rogers QCは「BCAは非常に評価の高い団体である。"bogus"という単語はBCAがカイロプラクティックについての主張が誤っていることをBCAが知っていたことを示唆している」と述べた。

Lord Neuberger asked if it was not the case that Singh had outlined his interpretation of the word “bogus” in the original article, where he described how Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst had been unable to find any evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic in over 70 trials.

「元記事の"bogus"という単語でSinghが何を意味したかが問題でないとすると、補完医療のEdzard Ernst教授が70以上の試験でカイロプラクティックの有効性を示す証拠が見出せなかったことをどう書けばよいのか」とNeuberger裁判官が質問した。

Rogers conceded that had Singh written that there was “no reliable evidence”, the defamation suit might never have happened.


[Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case (2010/02/23) on IndexOnCensorShip]
posted by Kumicit at 2010/02/26 21:04 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | News | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]