Slashdot Mirror
Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website
Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.
The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.
Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."
...The woman looked very surprised at the verdict.
Here's a link to the actual website, http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Seriously how the hell could this not be construed as free-speech? I mean she is simply providing information on a service she is unhappy about in the hopes of educating others. Jeez I'm getting more and more afraid to open my mouth every day.
You mean to say "woman defends right to criticize surgeon on website." She cannot win what she already had.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
When asked for comment, Dr Jonathan Sykes said, "If I had to do it over again, I would have chopped off her hands".
libel
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
You botch someone's face, they post about it, that's not unjust. This seems like a no-brainer. This was only taken to court because someone thought they could play the system.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
I mean she looked pretty good before she hired someone to cut her up.
Also, she probably should have done the malpractice research BEFORE the appointment.
Wow. Just wow.
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
In the picture on her website, I think looks like she might be helping the surprised look a little. The diffeence in the amount of her eyes showing between the two pictures of the before and after.
Don't be fooled by it, It could be because of the same surgury that raised her eyebrows. But I wouldn't know.
I sure would like to read the story but the link goes to some registration page. I'm not about to give any information do if someone has another link, it would be apriciated.
BTW, isn't she the one who got arested or something a while back for her page?
Just another dumbass who made a snap decision and had a bad outcome. Move along.
if the verdict was in her favor, then i believe the headline is inaccurate. she didn't "win" the right, it was upheld.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 http://www.infowars.com/
That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements.
"The doctor's thermometer is itty-bitty small!"
At least she is prepared for any upcoming surprise now.
You'd think Michael Jackson would be enough of a deterrent for most people, but I guess you can never underestimate the power of low self-esteem.
This one is one of my wife's favorites: http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/
The only reason she looks surprised is because her eyes are open so wide. You hardly notice the raised eyebrow unless you were actually looking for it. And I would swear after looking at the before & after shots, that her left eyebrow was slightly higher than her right BEFORE she had the surgery anyway.
Am I the only one finding resemblance to the article of a hardware review site not getting any more alienware hardware because their reviews weren't flattering enough?
Her permanent look of surprise might also have happened after she saw the bill. Yikes!
Mom always said "don't make that face, it'll stick that way!" Maybe she was right!
What a "shocking" story.
Could you leave a user name and password?
The part I've wanted to see discussed are the doctors rights to publicly rebut a site that complains about them. Under strict medical privacy laws it's not like a doctor could ( or should ) reveal medical details or photos in a public forum. So if a patient complains and sets up a web site, does that absolve the doctor in question from any requirements for maintaing confidentiality? When I heard about this and other similar sites, that was one of my first questions. If not, from a public opinion point of view they're screwed.
I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.
If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.
She looked alot better before the surgery than after. She looks much more attractive before the surgery.
Remember, the Doc can always say:
"She asked for it."
People who seek cosmetic surgery and *honestly* don't need it should be aware that they might not be happy with the outcome. Look, if you think need cosmetic surgery in the first place, then you should be spending your money on a therapist or counselor, NOT surgery. The only people who should be having cosmetic surgery are people who were either born with birth defects or are disfigured as the result of an accident.
Therefore, if you weren't disfigure in an accident or born with a birth defect or some kind of disfigurement, then I really don't feel sorry for you if you don't like the way you turned out.
I have only one question to ask these idiotic people who get cosmetic surgery simply for vanity and then complain: "Did you learn a lesson?"
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
up!
her website will probably just shift the surgeon into a whole new money-making demographic - men badgered by their wives for not expressing enough interest in whatever it is they're talking about. With eyebrows like that, an occasional tilt of the head away from the football game (or WOW game here I suppose) gives the illusion of intense interest. You're never going to get the "Are you even listening to me?!" line with a brow like this-> http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/images/ggbae_(2) .jpg
ôó
I've visited the web site in question, and I believe the surgeon has a point. It looks like the woman is using some of the same techniques shady businesses use to make before/after photos look different, but in reverse. These are:
- One photo being done in a natural setting, one artificial.
- One photo with a happy expression, one without
- One photo with good lighting, one with very stark.
- One photo with makeup, one without
Some of this is related, but look. She insists one eyebrow is higher than the other and she is left with a permanent "surpised" look. This is quite possible, the eyebrow position can give that look, but raising the eyebrows would not have a significant effect on how wide her eye lids are open. Notice in the second photo she exadgerates her "surpised" look by opening her eyes as wide as possible. Add to that the camera in the before photo is slightly above her, and the angle difference adds to the effect. She is smiling in the first photo, which tends to close the eyelids a little and adjusts the eyebrow position.
The makeup makes quite a difference to shading, and the after photo is in much more stark contrast, which elimates facial details.
Also remember that the woman has filed a malpractice suit and stands to gain financially from seeming to look badly now.
However the court ruled, I think the surgeon had a point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this ruling only applies to California, since it's a district court. I'm from California and I applaud the ruling, but it doesn't seem like it's going to have a huge impact unless it's a federal (or even international) court. Then again, California does have a lot of doctors...
As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.
Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial.
www.cgstock.com
I see what you mean and in alot of cases I might agree but if you check out the site this guy has been sued like 10 times in the last 7 years or so... Thats not a good sign. Plus what is point of putting ones self online to be mocked when there is no reason? Surely she could have simply shown the judge before and after pictures and avoided the embarassment.
yes sort of like offense is the best form of defense.
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
is watching the visitor counter at the bottom of the page spin as the site gets /.'d
Her right eyebrow in the before photo was raised slightly, the surgery appears to have only exaggerated her natural condition. Of course I think she has every right to criticize the results.
Also why does it look like she has an Adam's Apple?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
slashdot/slashdot was already registered and working by the time I got there.
"...or oral defamatory..."
That would be slander. Libel is only written or pictoral.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
The second picture looks like it has been narrowed by about 10%. The eyebrow isn't as noticeable if you restore the image to its original aspect ratio.
Is that an Adams Apple in the after photo ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I don't see much difference between "before" and "after." This is a real cosmetic surgery nightmare.
This case does reveal an important question: Does the fact that she went public, nullify her expectation of privacy under HIPPA? For example, if an actress talks about her breast implants on television interviews, can the doctor then talk about her case? With regards to this case it seems that any public discussion on his part regarding her case could be a violation of HIPPA. If it is not a violation, can a porn star's doctor discuss her negative HIV results since she must in fact have negative results to work in the industry? Lots of questions here. Need a medical law specialist.
In terms of the free speech, does his public defense of himself with regards to her case override her privacy expectations?
Finally, a simple question: what does " limited purpose public figure" mean? If my gardener does a crappy job and I post pictures of my dead lawn with his company name, is that defamatory?
Sorry for asking too many questions, but this case has many implications.
The other side effect of the surgery was due to the tightly stretched skin she can't close her eyes when she's sitting down.
The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes
Did anyone else read this as "deformation suit"??
Diplomacy is the art of letting other people have your way.
From the article
"Procedures: Endoscopic browlift, upper & lower blepharoplasty, cheeklift and fat injections"
My first thought is if I lift my brows I look suprised.
gnurfed said, "That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements."
My experience is that reconstructive surgery is deteriorating. Plastic surgeons are now learning to do cosmetic procedures, rather than reconstructive. I have a genetic defect with my eyelids, and had three surgeries as a child. Now decades later, I could use additionaladvanced reconstructive surgery to give my eyes a more reasonable appearance.
Eyes are very important to our facial expressions, and although my friends think I look lovely, strangers sometimes do an unpleasant double-take when they see me.
So I wanted to give it another shot, figuring reconstruction has improved since I was a poor child receiving free care.
The Stanford geneticist recommended a Stanford specialist and I went to see him. The waiting room was filled with literature about "eye lifts" for regular, aging people. I consult with the doctor (and I secretly recorded the conversation) and he did his utmost best to talk me out of any surgery at all. I could tell he was floundering.
I provided him records of what had been done, and suggested w2hat could be done, and made clear that I was not expecting miracles, just a slight improvement would be worth it.
He called in his senior, and they spent the next four minutes trying to pass the buck and make the other person do the surgery. The way we left it, was they were going to "contact my insurance" and I never heard back, despite sevferal phone calls.
These were Stanford Medical Center professionals, recommended by the geneticist who deals with birth defects, and THEY only wanted to do normal eyelid lifts. I was so disheartened, I never tried again.
GRR.
IMO way too fscking much money is spent on frivolous surgery.
My story, and I'm too tired to be concise so I'll just... submit it.
That woman is lucky - I wonder who did Michael's face. His is probably the best known plastic butchery ever...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
She looks all right either way, I would not call it a botch, despite her dissatisfaction. Her eyebrows are only uneven to the eye, if you know she considers them so. Something she could even probably fix, by letting her natural eyebrows grow back in, and re-shaping them. Her eyes are much wider, ala what you might see on TV. I would call her look "enthusiastic" rather than "surprised."
All in all, I think the pictures are not shown on the main page, because they're just not dramatic. Afterwards, the worst you can say is that she looks sort of artificial. And isn't that the point?
Sign me, a jealous woman, who thinks someone that pretty should pull herself out of depression by working in a soup kitchen, helping someone else, instead of fixating on her own navel.
Her lips were rather tilted to begin with, and they became very symmetric, so at least I hope she liked her lips! Mind you, I think she was lovely before the surgery, but it was probably seeing her off-kilter lips in the mirror, that disgruntled her the most!
It doesn't really look like her appearance has changed visibly at all.
And so the surgeon posted the story on Slashdot in the hopes of taking her site down that way.
I love it. Speech is free. Talking about it in the newspaper is not.
Well, the ruling of the court did seem to be consistent with the precedent. Criticism of public figures is legally protected free speech. In this case, the court rightfully determined that the doctor was acting as a public figure. This is kind of the same thing as in that whole debacle between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump. Trump really would be unable to sue her over alleged comments because he is a public figure. Trump is really just using a scare tactic and throwing his money around.
Georgette had no comment after the ruling, but she appeared surprised.
This is more like she managed to defend her right to criticize by proving at least per the judge that her claim had merit.
It is only defamation if the claim is false, and you don't have to go out and seek permission to criticize.
K.
People who get plastic surgery just so they feel better about themselves (im not talking injury repair or genetic defect, but low self-esteem women with too much money) get whatever happens to them. I don't feel sorry for her at all.
Hey, wait... You mean there are risks involved in having someone carve up your perfectly functional face? Why the hell don't they tell us about stuff like that beforehand?
Life needs more saving throws.
One eyebrow markedly higher than the other?! That's pure fuckup.
Back in 1995 I decided not to have laser eye surgery because the success rate was 71%, which struck me as pretty bad.
Nowadays I can't even find information on the success rate, I've googled like mad only to find various articles saying they don't keep track of these statistics. Of course, now I definitely won't have the surgery. This sort of information needs to be out there, I congratulate this woman.
Nobody has pointed out yet the economics?
The surgeon is playing the game: he took her money and accepted the risk to turn a profit. His clients are of a particular type, with certain needs, expectations. The type that get elective surgery and then sue if they don't like the results. If he was doing work for the poor in Venezuela correcting deformities then his chances at getting sued over bullshit is zero. But he is playing craps with upper class hags and so he takes his chances. I don't feel sorry for either of them, I hope they both get what they want, and what they deserve.
Personally, his job sucks, and I'm surprised it's even viable. If he did do "very subtle" changes, she would have paid all that money for nothing? She would have felt cheated, not being able to tell a difference. So he was under pressure to do something! (fast forward to Michael Jackson)
So many things can and do go wrong with this stuff, and patient's expectations and surgeon's promises are always unrealistic. Don't tell me about how advanced it is, it's not far from a goddamn auto mechanic. It's almost like you should be lucky to come out alive after surgery, especially elective.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2 007/c050766.html
Not with plastic surgery (I'm damned good looking anyway... for a nerd) but with eye surgery. I've been very nearsighted all my life (probably you too, foureyes) and as I'm in my middle years was both nearsighted AND farsighted.
I got an infection in my left eye the summer before last, and was prescribed eyedrops. The redness and pain didn't go away, so the GP sent me to a specialist, who prescribed an anti-inflamatory steroid. The pain and redness went away. However, shortly afterwards the vision in that eye started to cloud.
I went for new contacts (contact lenses and reading glasses, call me sixeyes) and the doctor said I had a cataract. "It's a 'young man's cataract'," he said. "You get them from steroids. When it gets worse, go see Doctor Yea. She'll fix you up and your insurance will pay for it."
So I saw her. She told me of a new kind of implant called the CrystaLens, only on the market since 2003 and the only accommodating IOL; as wikipedia says "The position of the lens can be changed by the ciliary muscles of the eye, allowing for natural focusing." She explained that there were possible complications with cataract surgery up to and including not only catastrophic blindness, but loss of the entire eye. I was scared shitless, but I couldn't see any better with the contact in that eye as without, and my vision before the cataract was worse than 20-400. My mom had had cataract surgery and said it was a piece of cake. The doctor also showed me a promotional video of the lens, and explained that most patients have better than 20-40 vision at all distances and most don't have the driving restrictions I'd had since I was 16.
I spent the extra money.
In the recovery room, I could read the clock on the wall. I'd never been able to do that without glasses before! My vision got better daily; in a week I was reading without reading glasses. It was nothing short of miraculous; my outcome was far better than average; distance vision in that eye had improved to 20-18, intermediate vision 20-12 and near vision 20-20.
Then I had a torn retina. Her colleague, a retina specialist, fixed it. My vision is good again, except for a nasty floater that Dr. Odin says is a piece of the retina's shield that came off when the retina tore.
I get the sense that the doctors are worried I'll sue. I won't; I know two people who have had torn retinas and neither of them had eye surgery. The biggest risk of a torn retina is nearsightedness (be warned, fellow foureyed nerds). It was a complication, but one I had been warned about.
I still plan on letting her stick a needle in my other eye when I get an old man's cataract (starting to form now, it will be a couple of years). I still wear a contact in that eye, call me three eyes!
It sounds like this plastic surgeon wasn't upfront about possible bad outcomes. He also erred in not referring her to a mental health practitioner - she really didn't need the surgery. From the picture, it looked like all she needed was soap and Paxil.
I'd hit it.
I didn't see this anywhere else, so forgive me if it's already been posted. Ms. Gilbert's website can be found here. It's not that great, but it does have a couple of before and after photos. Maybe some of you web design guys can do a little pro bono work for her.
Before, Booooring.
After, SmileX!
Thank you, Joker!
She was beautiful before the surgery. The surgery made her ugly. What a moron!
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Is this supposed to make me feel good? What kind of fucked up country do we live in where we have to "win the right" to criticize somebody? Also, tomorrow I'm going to court to "win the right" to continue breathing.
"... the surgery left her with ... a surprised look permanently affixed to her face."
I'd say about half the facelift's I've ever seen left the person with a permanently surprised look on their face.
On a positive note, at least she'll always look happy about whatever crappy christmas gifts she gets...
SO: *hands her pretty wrapped box*
Her (opening package containing a bowling ball with the name 'Homer' on it): *surprised look*
SO: "I knew you'd love it!"
Or whenever her SO cooks dinner...
SO: "Look, Honey, I made pimento/broccoli meatloaf!"
Her: *surprised look*
SO: "I knew you'd love it!"
That this woman ended up on the short end of the stick still doesn't affect the validity of her tail...
Good grief!! If she now has a tail it's no wonder she is critcising the surgeon!
... "difficult"
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
After all, Sykes does mean "shit-head" in Tenctonese.
alot of you were saying she looks more attractive before.. well duh!! i don't know what people think but plastic surgery is not for you. (hint: plastic sugery), unless you have burn wounds, a hole through your stomache, or been mauled by a couger theres not reason to have it done.. i personally prefer "all natural" to "enhanced-by the knife/pill".
The ruling won't help; she's hosted on GoDaddy.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I want to build that site.... if you don't do what the doctor says this is what will happen to you. Don't wear the binder after a breast augmentation, you get lopsided breasts. Don't take care of your incision, you get scars and/or infection. Bad outcomes from surgery happen to the best surgeons often b/c patients don't follow the instructions.
Seems like the link in the main article is already invalid. Somehow the parallel of attempting to point to a specific grain of sand on a desert sand dune comes to mind...
-o-
(ASCII art triggers the Lameness Filter! What a pity.)
(Yikes nothing I try results in a perfect format.)