Euthanasia ad banned
A pro-euthansasia ad created by The Works for Exit International will not air because the commercial TV industry fears it could break broadcast regulations, it has emerged.
As Mumbrella reported last week, the ad came about after the Works created a spoof ad on the topic for the ABC’s The Gruen Transfer. It was due to go to air this weekend.
But Exit says that Free TV has withdrawn permission for the ad to be aired. The ruling came from Free TV’s Commercials Advice (CAD) service. Free TV is the body representing Australian’s commercial TV networks.
According to an email from CAD released by Exit, it ruled that the ad encouraged suicide. The email added:
“CAD has discussed the advertisement with the television networks and they are of the same view as CAD.”
The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice states “material that will invariably be unsuitable for television” includes:
“2.17.5 Suicide: Realistic depiction of methods of suicide, or promotion or encouragement of suicide.
Linkedin
Decisions like this truly sadden me, still as I was told by a wizened Creative Director many moons ago, ‘CAD are the body who makes sure you can’t put into commercials what you can put in to programs’.
User ID not verified.
This is disgusting. Promotes suicide? How exactly. It doesn’t mention, it alludes to that being the topic of discussion and then it ends by making it, to me anyway, clear that it’s having a go at government. Sheez, are we so stupid that we can’t tell the difference?
CAD? Appropriate.
User ID not verified.
Unfortunately I believe the same applies for anyone wishing to put forward a case for the decriminalisation of drugs. There seems to be a need for an exception in the broadcasting rules for political ads that question the law.
I don’t think the codes had this in mind when they were created. Obviously promotion of drug use or suicide is not wanted but third parties/political organisations should be able to put their case forward. The current situation stifles debate.
User ID not verified.
I think being banned is the best thing that could happen. It means that the commercial will be discussed more and it will get massive amounts of free publicity.
But I think whoever made this knew this was going to happen.
User ID not verified.
Jeremy is right – this is perfect publicity.
User ID not verified.
How can something be banned because it “could break … regulations”?
Surely it either breaks the regulations and gets banned or it doesn’t and it airs?
User ID not verified.
The debate reaches a cross road when you start to understand the person suffering is not having a life. For this reason, I think the emphasis could have been more on ending suffering, rather than suicide.
This man looks and sounds a lot like a normal bloke. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but to make the point STRONGLY, the line between suffering and living was not visually evident and TV is a visual medium. There are far more dramatic examples that would have done this cause a greater justice and potentially ignited some compassion in those making the decisions.
A good start, but not quite enough to really cut through and make a strong point about why it SHOULD be allowed.
User ID not verified.
Is this where we are being manipulated by traditional religous doctrine? As a non-believer I object to being dictated to by those with a belief system I do not share. Freedom of speach being compromised again.
User ID not verified.
I agree, this ad should be banned.
Not because it’s offensive.
Because it’s void of any creativity.
User ID not verified.
Well presented statement of fact = who in their right mind would ban it.
User ID not verified.
I think this a lovely ad – a simple truth told in a sympathetic & compelling manner. Great work
User ID not verified.
Such a good topic, it’s so controversial and is a real and compelling argument. In my opinion, looking at the point of the ad and not that of it being banned, it should be a case by case basis as why should anyone have to suffer through their bodies breaking down… who would want to see their closest loved ones have to suffer, the govt needs to be more lenient and allow it to even be an option
User ID not verified.
To use a football analogy Exit got tackled too high and received the benefit of a 50 metre penalty. Play the game right and they will score a goal.
User ID not verified.
Shameful that it was banned – I hope those CAD people can sleep at night.
People with terminal illnesses shouldn’t have to end their lives in pain and suffering.
We wouldn’t let an animal go through the misery some of these poor people do.
All this means is that these poor people either use risky methods of ending their life that may not work, but may harm them further, or violent horrible methods.
It defies common decency and humanity to make a person keep enduring suffering when there is no end to it for ages.
Shame Shame Shame.
User ID not verified.