The British Humanist Association (BHA) and two members of the public complained about an advertisement for the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which included the following statement:
"My son was born with a heart problem. After a party he started bleeding from the mouth. I rushed him to hospital and the specialist said he had 16 loose arteries. He went into a coma, his heart stopped and both his lungs collapsed. Doctors and specialists expected him to die. At the UCKG I was given some blessed oil to anoint my son with. Now that his heart and lungs are better I thank the UCKG for all the spiritual support I received".
The ad further included the statement: "In accordance to the CAP Code, point 50.3, the UCKG HelpCentre's spiritual advice is to be seen as a complement to scientifically proven treatment you may be receiving. The UCKG does not claim to heal people but believes that God can through the power of faith. Always follow your doctor's instructions."
The BHA complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom that the ad implied that the blessed oil mentioned had some medicinal properties that could heal and the ASA investigated, asking the UCKG to substantiate the implied claims.
The UCKG responded:
1. UCKG pointed out that the testimonial stated clearly that the individual had received only 'spiritual support' from the church and that no other help was mentioned. They added that the reference to 'spiritual support' was previously suggested to them by the CAP Copy Advice team as an alternative to saying that the person received any sort of medical or physical help. UCKG said they had copies of the testimonial to demonstrate its authenticity.
2. UCKG stressed that it was not their intention to discourage anyone from seeking qualified medical advice as they did not offer any kind of advice for medical conditions, serious or otherwise. They pointed out that the disclaimer made clear that the spiritual support offered was to be used as a complement to scientifically proven treatment and that it added that a person should always follow their doctor's instructions.
3. UCKG believed that the reference to the CAP Code did not imply an endorsement of the ad, but merely that they offered prayer as a complement to other treatments. They said they had included the reference after referring a similar ad to the CAP Copy Advice team for advice.
The ASA considered that "the testimonial explained the medical difficulties experienced by the woman's son and that the medical staff involved in his treatment expected him to die. Although we considered that that made clear that proper medical treatment had been sought, we noted the testimonial also emphasised that UCKG had provided 'blessed oil' to anoint the child with before he subsequently recovered. We noted the UCKG argued that the ad made clear, in both the testimonial and explicitly in the footnote, that they offered only 'spiritual support' and noted UCKG had previously sought CAP Copy Advice over the use of the term. However, although we considered that it was a reasonable way to describe the support UCKG offered, the surrounding claims also went further. We considered that some readers were likely to infer from the ad as a whole that anointing oil had played some role in the sons recovery. Because UCKG had sent no evidence to support such an implication, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.3 (Testimonials and Endorsements), 50.1 and 50.27 (Health & Beauty Products and Therapies)." Thus, the ASA ruled that the complaint should be upheld.
The ASA "noted the ad referred to a serious medical condition. Although the testimonial explained that the woman had sought medical treatment for her son's condition, we considered that, because some readers were likely to infer from the ad as a whole that anointing oil had played some role in his recovery, the ad could discourage people from seeking essential treatment by implying that the oil had a curative effect. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.3 (Health & Beauty Products and Therapies)....We noted the footnote stated "In accordance to the CAP Code, point 50.3 ..." and considered that readers were likely to infer from that that the ad complied with that CAP Code clause. We considered that that was likely to be seen as an endorsement by CAP, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 14.6, and concluded that the ad breached the Code. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 14.6 (Testimonials and endorsements)....The ad must not appear again in its current form."
Read the entire ruling here. Here's coverage from a Guardian article.
What is interesting is that the ASA does not address the UCKG's defense, which is that it relied on the advice of the CAP Copy Advice team in constructing its advertisement. Note that the CAP Copy Advice team website says explicitly in response to questions about complaints lodged with the ASA and ASA adjudications:
Does seeking CAP Copy Advice prevent me from getting into trouble with the ASA?
It goes a long way towards doing just that and we know of no better way to prevent problems with the ASA. But we cannot guarantee either that the ASA will see things exactly the same way as we do or that an ad will not provoke complaints that will be investigated by the ASA.
With more subjective issues such as taste and decency, public sensitivities change over time so the ASA might receive complaints about something that has not previously been a problem. As part of the investigation process, the ASA will check if CopyAdvice was consulted. The adviser who dealt with your enquiry will explain the potential problems that were identified and what the recommendations were for changes. If it sees that you tried to avoid provoking complaints, the ASA will bear that in mind when reaching its decision.
What are the qualifications of the advisers?
Our advisers bring a wealth of experience ranging from law to advertising, finance, and environmental management. They have been trained to fully understand the CAP Code and how it has been interpreted by the ASA in the past. They keep abreast of complaints made to the ASA as well as all ASA adjudications, whether or not the ASA Council upheld the complaint. It would be fair to say that no other service is better informed of the requirements and application of the non-broadcast advertising Codes than Copy Advice!
Please note: our advisers do not give legal advice.
In the UCKG case, the ASA does note that the Church sought the advice of the CAP Code advice team. "We ...noted UCKG had previously sought CAP Copy Advice over the use of the term. However, although we considered that it was a reasonable way to describe the support UCKG offered, the surrounding claims also went further." The problem for the UCKG seems to have been in the "going further," specifically in the close connection of the sentence about the "blessed oil" provided, which was more than just spiritual support, and the sentence about the recovery of the patient, and then with the addition of the note about the compliance with the Code.
Comments