Talk:Cartwright Inquiry

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

References

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1202/1084/ - this is a link to something published in the New Zealand Medical Journal stating that "over 30 women died" as a result of the 'unfortunate experiment'. I'm not sure if this satisfies the need for the requested citation in the article. Dustyq (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - I'll add it in. --Lholden (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

````The assertion that over 30 women died is not accurate. While Cartwright avoided providing a figure in the inquiry, thus leaving the allegation unchallengeable. Sandra Coney claimed in her book that 29 women had died because of the purported experiment (Coney, The Unfortunate Experiment, p. 271). In the 1996 Listener Article written by Coney she referred to '26 lives wasted' (New Zealand Listener, The End of the Experiment, p. 22). Tony Baird wrote to the Director-General of Health, George Salmond, to inquire where this figure had come from; he was told that it was a 'commonly used figure' rather than an 'official figure' (Corbett, Metro, Second Thoughts, p. 70). There was no 'official figure'. Sixteen years later, the director of the Women's Health Council, Lynda Williams, published an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal stating that 'we must not forget that over 30 women died as a result' (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1202/1084/). Baird responded that claiming that the figure 'cannot be substantiated; he referred to appendix 12 of the Cartwright Report listing 24 women who died between 1973 and 1987, pointing out that in only eight of them was cancer of the cervix recorded as the cause of death and there is no way of knowing whether or not those women were part of the study of Associate Professor Green' (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1204/1136/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdn (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied most of this paragraph to the article. Thanks for the research.-gadfium 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commissions of Inquiry

Commissions of Inquiry are established by the Gov-Gen under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, not by any Minister in particular. Indeed, formally the Minister of Internal Affairs takes the paper to Cabinet to establish a CoI as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.70.113 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Sure, they're established by the Gov-Gen on the advice of Ministers. The GG doesn't have discretion in appointing inquiries. But the Act doesn't mention that. --Lholden (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdn (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is totally POV, representing only the feminist ideology behind the false allegations against Dr Green. For a balanced view, and a complete vindication of Dr Green, refer to the recent book by Prof Linda Bryder, published August 2009.JohnC (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you do not like the conclusions the commission came to does not make this article POV. You appear to have a particularly extreme view of Green's actions, as you deny any experiment occurred.-gadfium 06:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the denial that an experiment took place is not an extreme view. That Green set out to prove a hypothesis that abnormal pap smears did not necessarily lead to cervical cancer does appear to be vindicated by the book, and that sounds like an experiment to me.-gadfium 07:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, sorry, that McCaffrey thing has got me doing stuff on here again. I think Professor Bryder makes a reasonable case that Dr Green made the decision not to treat in what he believed to be the best interests of the women at the time, in what was not unacceptable practise for the time, and only later did anyone go back to study the difference in a retrospective analysis. If she is correct in saying the decision not to treat was not made in order to study the women, (and indeed for some time no study was done at all), then her claim there was no experiment seems reasonable to me. Correspondence on the fact in the last few issues of the Listener may be of interest. (Whether it was technically an experiement or not doesn't address the probably more important questions of whether it was correct to trade lower morbidity for potentially higher mortality, or whether the different mores of the period excuses Dr Green's patriachical conduct in failing to obtain informed consent for this decision).

Perhaps more importantly for the article, a summary of Prof Bryder's views may address the percieved POV problem in the article only reporting recieved feminist narrative of events. Kit Boyes (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Page

I think this is such an important topic for New Zealand health, that I am going to try and update / format it to reflect that importance. First steps are to create sub-topics. Egmason (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge-request (with Herb Green), as there have been substantial additions to both pages now. Egmason (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cartwright Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit - Outline of edits and reasons

I understand that the aim of Wikipedia is to fairly represent current expert opinion on a topic. Hence, I have altered the page to make it represent current expert opinion, while giving a clear place to critical viewpoints.

To do this I have:

(a) revised recent editing of the page. This editing has changed the facts of the Inquiry and Report in line with the critics' viewpoint. I would call this 'subtle viewpoint promotion'.

(b) Made a separate section: 'Defence of Green's practices' which includes material from the recent editing. I note that the changes appear to have been made to support the viewpoint of a new publication - which is referenced in the revision. [It was Green's study that was the subject of the Cartwright Inquiry.]

(c) Taken the opportunity to align the structure and content of the page with the Cartwright Report itself, because this represents the established position. There was one attempt at a legal challenge to Cartwright's findings, but this was withdrawn by consent, as the parties acknowledged they had misunderstood the Report.

(d) Included separate sections describing and referencing recent publications based on a re-examination of the Cartwright data and a book which tells the story of the whole saga.

(e) I have left in some information from the critics that is clearly wrong in the section on Defence of Green's practices. In one case I have provided the correct information in square brackets.

(f) I have expanded the bibliography. Previously it was largely restricted to publications that defended Green.

Joanna Manning (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC) 19 December 2019[reply]

Joanna Manning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanna Manning (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overton book?

A new book about the Green affair has recently been published by Dr. Helen Overton: Demonising a Good Doctor: The Medical Scandal That Wasn't. I think it's self-published, but it may be worth mentioning in the article.[1] (I don't know enough about the case to do this myself.) Muzilon (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]