New citizens’ juries in breast screening review are biased
BMJ 2012; 345 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7552 (Published 19 November 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e7552- Hazel Thornton, honorary visiting fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester1
- hazelcagct{at}keme.co.uk
It is now acknowledged that women need better information when deciding about breast screening.1 This is not a new recommendation.2
But is a poorly conceived (illegitimate?) citizens’ jury an appropriate method to “consider ways of presenting to eligible women, data on benefits and harms of breast screening arising from the Marmot review”?3
On 11 October 2012, I accepted an invitation from King’s Health Partners (KHP) to be a witness at a 2.5 day citizens’ jury, beginning 19 November 2012, facilitated by the Office for Public Management (OPM).
On receiving my “witness briefing” I was dismayed by its biased and faulty content. I was also appalled that the Advisory Group to Informed Choice about Cancer Screening (ICCS) at KHP appointed to oversee and govern “A new approach to developing information about NHS cancer screening programmes” and some expert witnesses for the Marmot review knew nothing about it. I received intelligence that the promoters (KHP) considered me to be someone with “a very particular negative story” and were concerned that “it would prejudice the jury.” These shocking revelations prompted me to resign as a witness, fully explaining my reasons. KHP and OPM asked me to reconsider. I declined, and also declined their request to suggest a replacement witness.
Observers will be restricted—charities allowed, but not medical journalists. The last half day is set aside for presentation of the “new breast cancer screening information leaflet draft for consideration by jury,” presented by an official from ICCS.
This is an appalling waste of £35 000 (€43 680; $55 950) of public money. Deliberative democracy is not being enabled or delivered by this biased and controlled event, planned in private, which, judged against the ideal Jefferson Center outline,3 is not a true citizens’ jury.4
Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e7552
Footnotes
HT is an independent citizen advocate for quality in research and healthcare.
Competing interests: None declared.