Why media coverage of alternative cancer cures is dangerous

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/mar/04/why-media-coverage-of-alternative-cancer-cures-is-dangerous
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kelly-logan-mum-refuses-nhs-5228826

Kelly Logan, who refused traditional treatments in favour
 of herbal remedies and a raw vegetable diet.

Last week the Mirror Online reported on the story of the "defiant mother" and breast cancer patient Kelly Logan, who refused surgery and being "pumped full of chemotherapy" that her doctors advised, electing instead to try and treat her condition with an intense regime of raw food and supplements. Her decision was seen in the article to promote this attitude towards cancer treatment, however Logan herself is not a cancer treatment specialist. It shows pictures of Logan looking happy and well with her family, along with rough outlines of her diet, her blog and the Macmillan (a cancer support) website.

The Guardian had the view that "articles like this one are extremely regrettable; they jeopardise the efforts of the many professionals who work tirelessly to improve the prospects of cancer patients". And so, could result in the avoidable deaths of cancer patients who follow in Logan's footsteps, and reject medical cancer treatment and instead opt for other methods. The article also includes details of the potentially harmful remedies that Logan suggests, including one in which The Mirror reported on a fortnight beforehand, that was being sold by a conman and so was "potentially toxic".

Jessica Ainscough rejected traditional cancer treatment.

A day after the article was posted Jessica Ainscough - Australia’s “wellness warrior” - died after her battle with cancer. She too, was faced with a serious diagnosis, but elected to treat her cancer with a regime of supplements and juices, which gained her regular positive coverage in the media, as well as gaining her tens of thousands of social media followers, who she recommended her lifestyle to, before dying aged 30 last week.

My view on The Mirror's article, as well as The Guardian's coverage of the article, is that both can be seen to be shaming one particular treatment of cancer. Although the medical treatment of cancer has a lot of research and evidence for it, each individual cancer sufferer has the right to know of all potential routes that they may take, and then make an informed decision based upon that. Shaming treatments, which can be seen in both articles, may funnel cancer patients into making a decision about their treatment, based on bias articles. Therefore it is important for media institutions to present unbiased articles on cancer treatment, so that readers come away from it informed, instead of having an opinion forced upon them.