The Registrar received a complaint from a medical doctor, Dr Levin, about a programme on Ritalin, 
which is widely used for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). The matter was referred to a Commissioner, who dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed to the Tribunal of the Commission. The complaint was directed at a programme in which the use of Ritalin to treat ADHD was discussed. The complainant was particularly concerned that the critical view of a Dr Bruggin was included in the programme. According to the complainant the views of Dr Bruggin have been rejected by medical specialist experts and the inclusion of his view was confusing. The SABC responded by arguing that the objective of the programme was to express a variety of opinions, leaving it up to the viewer to generate his or her own opinion on the matter. The programme looked at all sides of the issue of treatment of ADHD, talking to pediatricians, psychiatrists, teachers, parents, and children, thereby providing a very balanced view on the matter. Dr Levin attempted to provide us with materials about Dr Bruggin, which would show us that his views are not accepted by the medical sorority and fraternity. I ruled that this evidence was hearsay and inadmissible. We already heard Dr Levin’s view and it was clear that he, as a specialist, differed profoundly from Dr Bruggin. I am sure that Dr Bruggin would also disagree profoundly from the views of Dr Levin. And this is what viewers need: a wide variety of views on Ritalin. Even if the programme confused a number of viewers, then it would also inspire them to learn more and ask questions when next they take their children to psychiatrists and psychologists. What we need is a debating people and not a people that complacently accept the word of one or a few or even the majority. The programme did not amount to the broadcast of an unfair comment by having included the views of Dr Bruggin and other views which might not be acceptable to Dr Levin. It gave a broad overview of views which provided the necessary balance. The complaint was dismissed.
