Supreme Court Reverses Ban on Use of the Word ‘Quack’
In 2007 the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam prohibited the Dutch
Association against Quackery from calling orthomanual therapist
Maria Sickesz a quack. On 15 May 2009 the Dutch Supreme Court 2009
has
reversed this judgment.
Sickesz is the founder of orthomanual therapy. She contended that
with her treatment method she could not only cure neck, shoulder
and back complaints, but also psychiatric syndromes such as autism,
schizophrenia and manic-depressive psychoses. The objective of the
Dutch
Association against Quackery is to fight quackery and to
evaluate alternative treatment methods. The Association uses a
neutral definition of quackery. In brief, this concerns treatment
methods of which the effect has not been tested for effectiveness
and safety. This definition was also mentioned with the top-twenty,
and it was stated that the term 'quack' did not imply any
accusation of fraud or bad faith. In the year 2000 the Association
published a compilation containing a top-twenty of quacks of the
twentieth century. Sickesz held the seventh position on that
list.
Sickesz went to court, but was ruled against. Sickesz then
appealed and the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam prohibited the
Association from calling Sickesz a quack. The Court of Appeal had
considered that other media, when they copy information from the
Association, often do not mention its definition and therefore, the
Court of Appeal had taken the definition of 'quackery' in
the Van Dale dictionary as a starting point. The Court of Appeal
also considered that the Association had to take into account that
the general public would ascribe a 'negative emotional
value' to 'quackery'.
The Supreme Court has now decided that the Court of Appeal's
judgment was wrong. The Court of Appeal should not have ignored the
Association's own definition, and the fact that it leaves no
uncertainty about this definition. Any damage to the honor and
reputation of Sickesz that may arise from the copying of
information by other media that do not explain the definition
cannot simply be attributed to the Association. The next question
is whether the objections of the Association against the treatment
methods of Sickesz, such as the absence of scientific research or
practical experiences demonstrating that orthomanual medicine is
effective, are sufficient to support the accusation of quackery.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had not
sufficiently examined this question. This will have to be done
still. Because the Supreme Court is not allowed to make such
factual considerations, it has referred the case back to another
Court of Appeal, that of The Hague.
The Supreme Court has sent out a clear signal in favor of the
freedom of expression. The Dutch Association against Quackery is
allowed to label therapies of which the effect and/or safety have
not been demonstrated as quackery and, if a publication is copied
by others, a distorted representation thereof should not easily be
attributed to the source of the original publication.
On her website Sickesz still maintains that her treatment method
also produces effects for (among other things) autism and ADHD.