Events
Due to the statements he made on television programs on gestational diabetes on various dates, the applicant was accused of “make a medical evaluation on a non-specialized subject, harm public health with non-scientific explanations, make advertisements with his statements, make contradictory statements to his colleagues, and disagree with physicians who think differently with him in a conflict on a medical issue.” A disciplinary investigation was initiated with the allegations of “using a method of discussion in an unlawful manner” and the applicant was given a temporary suspension from the profession for a period of fifteen days by the decision of the Honor Board of the Chamber of Physicians. The decision was also approved by the Turkish Medical Association (TTB) High Honor Board. The lawsuit filed by the applicant for the annulment of the said decision was rejected by the Administrative Court, and the appeal request was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court.
allegations
The applicant alleges that his freedom of expression was violated, as he was sentenced to be temporarily suspended from his profession for a period of fifteen days due to the medical statements he made on different dates on television programs.
Court’s Evaluation
The applicant was punished for making a statement in a field in which he was not an expert. As it is understood, the TTB did not find it appropriate for the applicant to express his thoughts in an area for which he did not have a specialty. Undoubtedly, the requirement of proving one’s expertise in order to express an opinion, even in the field that is qualified as scientific, restricts freedom of expression to such an extent that it makes it meaningless. Moreover, the applicant is a cardiologist and internal medicine specialist, as well as a well-known academician and scientist in Turkey.
From his point of view, the applicant explained in a language that everyone could understand that the oral glucose diagnostic test (OGTT) administered was harmful to the mother and child. Even if it is accepted that some of the statements of the applicant were critical of his colleagues and even exaggerated, it should not be the duty of the judicial authorities to replace a scientist and determine the form of expression to be used in a particular situation. According to the Constitutional Court’s assessment, the applicant mainly targeted the method applied.
The fact that the applicant, who has many books he wrote, has a great reputation from the television programs he participated in, the internet and social networking channels, while trying to justify his views, is considered an advertisement when the physicians pointing to the books in which he made more technical explanations, going beyond the aim to be achieved with the prohibition of advertisements, and indirectly influencing the field of freedom of expression. means narrowing.
It has been accepted that “television and print media”, where the applicant did not make his statements in a “scientific environment and scientific data”, is not a suitable environment. It is not the task of the courts to explain what terms like “scientific environment” or “scientific data” mean. The applicant, who is a well-known scientist and academician in the field of medicine, freely chooses his research topics based on his own preferences, accesses the resources he deems relevant and necessary, evaluates the data he has obtained according to the scientific study methods he has adopted, and writes his conclusions in environments that he deems appropriate to participate, both with the academic community and the society, and It is the most fundamental right to express and share freely by speaking.
Undoubtedly, it cannot be said that everything scientists and academics say is absolutely true. However, it is an agreed fact that different and alternative perspectives create the opportunity for more accurate thinking for everyone. Therefore, it is vitally important for individuals, society and the country that the applicant can oppose even the strongest views, even on a very critical and sensitive issue such as maternal and child health.
Essentially, the threat posed by the statements of the applicant for the health of the mother and child has not been put forward concretely in the decisions of the courts of instance. Considering all the circumstances of the application, it was concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression, which is protected in Article 26 of the Constitution, by imposing a severe disciplinary penalty on the applicant, such as temporary suspension from the profession for a period of fifteen days, did not correspond to a predominant social need and was not proportionate.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had been violated for the reasons explained.
