Violation Of Freedom Of Expression Due To Temporary Suspension From Profession
Events
A disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant due to his statements on pregnancy sugar on various television programmes on various dates, with the allegations of “making medical evaluations on a subject outside his expertise, harming public health with unscientific statements, making advertisements with his statements, making statements disparaging his colleagues, using an unethical method of discussion with physicians who think differently from him in a dispute regarding a medical issue” and the applicant was sentenced to temporary suspension from the profession for fifteen days by the decision of the Honour Board of the Chamber of Medicine. The decision was upheld by the Turkish Medical Association (TTB) High Honour Board. The applicant’s lawsuit for the cancellation of the decision was rejected by the Administrative Court and his appeal was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression had been violated as he had been sentenced to temporary suspension from his profession for fifteen days due to the medical statements he had made on television programmes on different dates.
The Court’s Assessment
Applicant was penalised for making a statement in a field in which he was not an expert. It is understood that the TMA did not deem it appropriate for the applicant to express his opinions in a field in which he did not have a certificate of specialisation. Undoubtedly, the requirement to prove one’s expertise in order to express an opinion, even in a field that is considered scientific, restricts freedom of expression to the point of rendering it meaningless. Moreover, the applicant is a cardiology and internal medicine specialist as well as a well-known academic and scientist in Turkey in general.
The applicant expressed his view that, from his point of view, the oral glucose diagnostic test (OGTT) harms mother and child in a language that everyone can understand. Even if it is accepted that some of the applicant’s statements were critical of his colleagues and even exaggerated, it should not be the duty of the judicial authorities to step into the shoes of a scientist and determine the form of expression to be used in a certain situation. According to the Constitutional Court’s assessment, the applicant mainly targeted the method applied.
.
The fact that the applicant, who has written many books and has gained a great deal of recognition from the television programmes he has participated in and from the internet and social networking channels, points to his books in which he has made more technical explanations while trying to justify his opinions, is considered as an advertisement means indirectly narrowing the field of freedom of expression by going beyond the purpose sought to be achieved by the prohibition of advertisement for physicians.
It was accepted that “television and print media” were not a suitable medium, as the applicant had not made his statements in a “scientific environment and with scientific data”. It is not the task of the courts to explain the meaning of terms such as “scientific environment” or “scientific data”. I.t is the most fundamental right of the applicant, who is a well-known scientist and academic in the field of medicine, to freely choose his research topics based on his own preferences, to access the sources he deems relevant and necessary, to evaluate the data he obtains according to the scientific working methods he adopts, and to freely explain and share his conclusions by writing and speaking both in the academic community and the society in the environments he deems appropriate to participate in.
.
Undoubtedly, it cannot be said that everything scientists and academics say is absolutely true. However, it is an agreed fact that different and alternative views create a more accurate thinking opportunity for everyone. Therefore, it is of vital importance for individuals, society and the country that the applicant is able to oppose even the strongest views, even in a matter as critical and sensitive as maternal and child health.
In the judgements of the courts of first instance, the threat posed by the applicant’s statements to the health of mothers and children was not concretely demonstrated. Considering all the circumstances of the application, it is concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression protected under Article 26 of the Constitution by imposing a severe disciplinary penalty such as temporary suspension from the profession for fifteen days does not correspond to an overriding social need and is not proportionate.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.