Overview

This is one of the most important Arguments. It deals with how a forewarned and clearly made aware (either directly as Section 6.3.1 dictates or indirectly via cameras, lights and communication from the panorama team) NHS clinician carries out an assessment that is later compared to secretly recorded private clinics assessments.

It could be reasonable to include a reference to BBCG Section 4.3.28, 4.3.29 - Personal View Content which Dr. Smith clearly displayed but the response is already way too long and I’ll include it in A05. Unrepresentative NHS assessment, failing to challenge consensus. The failure to challenge the BBCG Section 4.3.15 - Consensus (4.3.16 Supporting) and treating NHS as baseline is also addressed in A05. Unrepresentative NHS assessment, failing to challenge consensus

Commentary

Concise (119 words)

<aside> ✍️ The output builds its entire premise upon a comparison between an NHS assessment where the clinician had significant awareness of filming, the content and purpose (as per Section 6.3.1 - Informed Consent) AND a number of secretly recorded private practices assessments. This alone violates Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 - Accuracy, Sections 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 - Due Weight and Impartiality in Controversial Subjects and Section 4.3.15 - Consensus.

BBC response in prior Stages fails to acknowledge it, instead focusing on the duration and prior communication between the reporter and the clinician, ignoring the core accusation of inhering bias of the comparison. BBC response also contradicts reporters’ own account of being in touch with the NHS clinician prior to the assessment.

</aside>

Detailed, character-optimised (245 words, 1604 characters)

<aside> ✍️ The output contrasts NHS and private assessments in its entirety. It relies on an NHS assessment that was conducted with either full (as per Section 6.3.1 - Informed Consent) or partial (crews, professional cameras, lights) understanding of the content and purpose of the output. It also wasn't signposted as "Sector Recording" This is compared to secretly filmed and heavily edited private assessments, violating Sections 3.2.22 and 3.2.33 - Production Techniques, leading to a skewed perception.

This significantly breaches several Sections: 3.1 mandates accuracy in sourcing and evidence. 3.3.1 emphasises considering relevant opinions and facts to arrive at the truth, including fact-checking and contextualising claims, 3.3.8 requires using a range of evidence to assess statistical claims accurately. 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 concerning Due Weight, Impartiality, and Controversial Subjects, are also violated.

Reporter admits to informing Dr. Smith about the research before the assessment (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65534449): “I told him about my investigation and he said he also had concerns about how some private providers were operating. He agreed to show me how an assessment should be carried out.” Contrary to what was stated in the Stage 1B response. This undermines the credibility of the assessment as it was biased and unsuitable for comparison. Either that or BBC failed to follow Section 6.3.1 on consent, or if Stage 1 responses lied as well as sidestepping the direct address of the inadequacy of comparison in the output's foundation.

</aside>

Detailed (377 words)

Details

  1. The BBC breached BBC Guidelines Section 6.3.1 on Contributors and Informed Consent by not fully disclosing the nature and purpose of the content to the NHS consultant before the assessment OR, by claiming no contact with the reporter before the assessment, contradict the reporter's statement about informing the psychiatrist about the investigation beforehand.
  2. The reporter's undercover approach created a biased and incomparable situation between the NHS assessment and the private assessments, making it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the accuracy of ADHD diagnoses, comparing the diagnoses made by the NHS psychiatrist who knew about the investigation with those made by private clinics without such knowledge is fallacious and misleading.
  3. The BBC did not consider the potential harm caused by the program to the ADHD community, particularly by portraying private clinics as less trustworthy and failing to give due weight to both possibilities of correct diagnoses.
  4. The BBC's use of an image of the reporter with the NHS psychiatrist on their webpage raised concerns about the psychiatrist's willingness to give a diagnosis under normal circumstances if he knew it was part of a BBC investigation.
  5. The program did not properly address the importance of trust and positive regard in the psychiatrist-patient relationship and the potential harm caused by not believing patients throughout their lives.

TODO convert RAW

Raw

Credits

TODO: try to, when summarising, credit the main contributing thoughts (where possible, some aren’t identifiable / not direct quotes but rather Mikes’ mind-melt after reading the subreddit for hours)