Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints
Carl Bialik writes "'Several Web sites have sprung up that encourage patients to post anonymous reviews of doctors and dentists. Some frustrated patients have even created entire Web sites to criticize specific physicians. The Wall Street Journal Online is reporting that some doctors are, in turn, defending their reputation by suing the online critics."
If the "slander" is determined to be fact, then there is no liable (read: defamation of character) that the poster/blog/web site can be sued for. In this case, the onus is placed on the offended (doctors) to prove that the offending statement is untrue. Without that proof, there is no recourse for the Doctors.
The problem that's come up is that people have found it easier to file a civil lawsuit than accept defeat, and as we all know, defense against frivilous lawsuits is expensive and certainly not a guarantee, even if you're in the right.
The truth is an absolute defense against libel, but it's not going to protect you from a lawsuit.
Those interested in this subject should probably check out The Death of Free Speech by John Ziegler, a radio host who recently won a libel suit filed by a ex who happened to be a TV personality after making true statements about her on the air.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Without exhausting existing avenues for complains against Physicians/Surgeons, posting directly on the Internet should be discouraged.
Not, it is not a issue of free speech, but if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer.
I know this as a Physician myself.
As an alternative one can always report to the licensing boards and ask for review by a panel of experts and specialists instead of setting up a novice 'peoples' court and run a witch hunt.
Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed.. by virtue of visiting a doctor, a patient agrees to put himself/herself under that doctor's care. The burden is on the patient to find a physician whom he can believe.
If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?
My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures. Wild West tactics might only backfire on the general population.
Here is an example of a statement which is not factual because a fact is, by definition, true.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Congratulations, asshole: now everyone after you has to wait even longer.
My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone. Given that her alternatives are:
- Spend the extra required time to treat that patient, or
- Tell them, "sorry, your allotted time is up. Please see the receptionist about scheduling more next month."
Which would you pick, and why? Would you give the same answer if your problem was the one that's taking longer than expected?Believe it or not, the vast majority of doctors would really like to stay on schedule. Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.
In short, don't be a dick and make matters worse. A lot of the doctors I hang around with have an "n strikes" rule: screw them over n times without a legitimate excuse, and suddenly expect to find that all your appointments are at 6:30am or 7:00pm, whichever is least convenient for you. Is that really a battle you want to fight, particularly since if you weren't already sick you wouldn't be seeing them in the first place?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The domain name is usually considered protected speech so long as the content is not actionable (slander/libel, (C) infringement, TM infringement, etc.)
p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.
For example: http://farmersreallysucks.com/ is a website about my experience with Farmers Insurance. All I say is either factual, or commentary. In the case of factual information, it is not actionable, in the case of commentary, that too is protected speech, even if inflammitory, so long as it is not represented as fact.
I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals.
What I can not do is: Farmers, an insurance company, is comprised of asshats that eat children.
The former was a statement of opinion, the latter of fact (and not accurate, making it libel).
Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?
Cheers,
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.
The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Fight Spammers!
The best way to find a good physician is to ask a nurse for a referral. Nurses in hospitals work with many physicians, and have definite opinions about them. And they share those opinions with fellow nurses. This method has never failed to help me find a good, intelligent, caring physician, whether a specialist or general practitioner.
If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
On the other hand, half the review sites they mentioned weren't any better. The dentist one especially, simply takes down any review that gets a complaint from the dr. This is a disinterested review site then?
;)
Feel free to tell your friends about me, but only if its positive otherwise it'll cost ya.... Sure, that's called advertising, show me the money
Sites like this can be useful for frank discussion of the merrits/failings of a person or company, but they are also frequently abused.
My partner is a professor. He has complained to me about ratemyprofessors.com, where students who are disgrunteled for getting bad grades can write very derogatory and misleading things about their teachers. The site makes no attempt to assess truth, and there's no opportunity for the professor to respond.
This pattern of website gives a sense of anonymity and can be more about freedom from responsible speech rather than freedom of speech.
Yes, my partner could probably find out who made which comment and sue for slander or libel, but that seems like such an extreme measure. Maybe people should sue though. Many people would not post the things they do if they thought they would actually be held responsible for their comments.
No. If the doctor had sued and won it would indicate that the claims were false or misrepresented. This just means that the doctor and his lawyer believe that to be the case.
The RIAA suing an old granny for copyright infringement, it does not materially mean that she was infringing. It means that's what the RIAA think.
SCO suing everyone for copyright infringement/breach of license doesn't indicate that people probably did steal from SCO. It means SCO believe so.
Threatening someone with the way you interpreted the situation in no way is an objective view of what actually happened. ANd just because someone files suit doesn't mean their suit has merit or that the defendant was guilty.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Libel is written, Slander is spoken.
In most states, you can search for your doctor and see their list of malpractice suits, medical board disciplinary actions, and a record of any crimes for which they've been convicted.
Facts, not hearsay.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
I believe the poster is refering to the following: http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct97/oct97c.html
DR.Oogle http://doctoroogle.com/ has over 19,000 dentist reviews for 50 major metropolitan locations across the US. Only 13% of those reviews are critical or negative in nature. Considering that a dentist visit can, and often is, a scary experience - 13% is LOW! Yet, WSJ chose to concentrate on the "juicy" stuff - subpoenas, threats, lawsuits etc. while ignoring the fact that the bulk of the patient feedback is positive.
http://archives.cnn.com/1999/US/12/02/wto.04/ talks about a "46-block 'no protest' zone" which is just an inverse "free speech zone". It looks to me as if the concept was there under Clinton and it has has been refined since then.
You need a little history lesson. The regulation of doctors is done through licensing -- the AMA. The AMA started in 1898. Their goal was to limit the number of medical schools and limit the number of students admitted to each medical school. They claimed this was to insure higher quality of health care, but its own clear effect was to limit the supply of doctors in America. Hopefully you know enough about economics to realize that limiting supply while demand stays constant will increase price. Anyways, by 1910 the government introduced legislation that closed all non-AMA medical schools. The number of medical schools in the US dropped from 163 in 1906 to 69 in 1944.
But wait, it gets better. Medical schools wanted to increase their class sizes in the great depression. They found themselves in the position of turning back qualified students even though they had space for them. Clearly the AMA was not going to like an increase in the supply of doctors. So what did they do? Well most (if not all) medical schools also operate or are associated with a hospital. The AMA threatened to revoke the licneses of their hospitals if they increased the number of medical students they admitted.
So you would think that all these high standards and licensing would at least increase the quality of health care in the US, right? Nope. America's cost per capita for health care is the highest in the world at $4662, yet we rank 42nd in life expectancy, 37th in infact mortality, and more than 100,000 patients die each year in hospitals from accidents and medication errors. Here's a great article on that.
You see, licensure basically creates a government backed monopoly. You have some group with a vested interest (current doctors) who are able to limit compettition (by saying who can offer medicine and how it must be offered) with the backing of the federal government. Microsoft's monopoly is nothing in comparison! There's no law against you installing Linux...
Finally, the other thing that regulation/licensure causes is a hinderance to technology. There was a great article from a guy at Harvard Business (couldn't find any free links to it) about how health care is ripe for disruptive technologies. It's an industry where specialization is more and more common. This requires much more education/training, but allows for higher profit margins. However, specialization is needed by less people. So what you wind up with is that most people see doctors who are way-over-qualified to treat whatever is wrong with them. Yet these doctor's must recover the costs of the extra education needed for their specialization. Hence the high cost of health care in the US. This kind of thing has been seen in countless other industries, and it usually leads to a disruptive technology. The disruptive tech is something that is not as good as what it competes against, but is good enough for most people and much cheaper. Over time the disruptive technology becomes better and better. Think Solaris vs. Linux if that helps.
So why haven't we seen something like this in health care? The answer is simple: licensure. People with vested interest are able to protect their position at the expense of the public. They can stop compettition that would otherwise increase the quality of life of the public and decrease the economic drain.
So you see, more government regulation may not be the answer. The people doing the regulating will have to have medical training. So we're right back in the position of people with a vested interest having even more people to control their industry. This hasn't worked in the past, so there's no reason why it would would now. If anything, it will likely limit supply (how many doctors) even more (in the name of increasing quality) and thus make doctors even less accountable for their actions (combine that with legislation to limit malpractice lawsuits.) It will also make sure
Who is the peer in "peer-reviewed" who would review a medical journal who isn't also a doctor?
Fact is, any "study" published in a medical journal tooting the horn of, well, *medical professionals*, done by those same medical professionals, deserves a healthy amount of skepticism.
But that isn't what your link talked about. In fact, it doesn't address the actual skill of the doctors in question at all. According to the article, the complaints are summarized as:
"63 percent found that older physicians were less likely than younger doctors to conform to current standards."
and
"14 of 19 studies (74 percent) looking at performance found that older physicians were less likely to adhere to therapeutic standards compared with younger doctors."
In other words, older doctors are less likely to rigidly follow practices exhorted in medical school, and instead do what they think is best. Which apparently seems to be some sort of heretical idea, at least where younger doctors (or Harvard Medical School) is concerned.
Also note this piece of fucking silliness:
" One study found that patients were more likely to die of a heart attack if their physician had been in practice for more years."
The "study" which is being referred to was thoroughly debunked as soon as it hit the journals. Why? Because what the study failed to mention is that *older doctors tend to have older patients*. Of *course* older doctors have more patients that die of heart attacks; their clientele is older and more at risk!
Given that at least one of the sources of the meta-study you linked to was proven to be a crock of horseshit right from the get-go, I remain firmly skeptical of the results of the meta-study, as well as their interpretation of those results (i.e., "doctors who don't rigidly follow practices taught in med school are worse than the fresh, wet-behind-the-ears puppies who do").
Gotta wonder if this is just bad science, or if someone is promoting an agenda.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Doesn't matter if they do. Unless the patient signs a release of medical information waiver which specifically waives any sanctions under the HIPAA, the doctors can't respond in public. Even before HIPAA, most doctors wouldn't have responded under the principle of patient confidentiality. So essentially, it's a name-calling game where only one side is allowed to shout epithets, and the other side is required by law to keep silent.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."