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."
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.
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.
I believe the poster is refering to the following: http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct97/oct97c.html