Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Silencing Online Patient Reviews Via Contract
Condiment writes "Next time you're sick, take five and actually read the pile of contracts your doctor dumps on your lap, because it's becoming more and more likely that your doctors are banning patients from posting reviews on the Web. You heard that right: as a prerequisite to receiving medical care, patients are in many cases required to sign away their First Amendment rights!"
see subject.
You can't ban free speech, at least not in this country.
Although they're working on it.
Sent from your iPad.
Just because it's on paper and signed, doesn't mean it's enforcible in court.
Ain't so simple as you make it. Courts have also ruled that free speech may not be banned by contract where there is a significant public policy interest in preventing this from occurring.
Whether this would be included would likely be decided in court, and indubitably appealed to the first court of record in the jurisdiction where the case was brought.
In general, contracts are considered to be full-fledged agreements between parties and courts will bind them.
However, there are three doctrines under which gag clauses could be severed:
incapacity -- you were on the gurney when you signed and did not properly review the contract
fundamental breech -- a party who does a terrible job of fulfilling their promises can no longer hold the other party to theirs; and
public policy -- courts can invalidate any clause they deem contrary to public policy.
US courts are very reluctant to use any of these. But a given sets of facts may drive a court. Bad facts make bad law. IANAL.
Everyone, repeat after me; "Some Contracts Are Not Legally Enforceable."
Many of us have had to sign non-compete clauses, sign documents stating to hold ex-employers harmless so a prospective employer can ask them whatever, etc., etc. See though, most contracts have some language to the effect of "if some of this is declared crap, the rest shall remain in effect." They put that in there because they know there is crap language in there and are hoping you just go along with it because it "looks legal". It's the same way RIAA, the MPAA, and all those cease and desist orders we keep hearing about operate; Make it look official and chances are good people will go "Oh Noes! Legal Mumbo Jumbo! Aieeeeeee. thud."
My advice? Sign it. Get treated. If s/he does a good job -- great, say so. If they do a crap job though, tell the whole damn world (but have proof). If that doctor wants to come after you for it; "Hello? Channel 9 news? I'm being oppressed." He might get you for breach of contract, but you'll make sure it's the last time anyone signs it. Think someone wants to risk their career, after spending 10 years just getting started in it, trying to prosecute someone who told the truth? Get real.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Because you can refuse and have the option to go to another doctor. If all the doctors were doing it, then you would have no where to go.
since its unenforceable, its no big deal
but you are disregarding the issue of intent
simple actual effect is not the only grounds on which we can, and should, legally proceed, on this question or any other
that's why we can try people for attempted murder. but according to you, someone is innocent until they actually murder someone. that if they try to murder someone, and fail, according to your approach they get off scott free. wrong. or consider the riaa: their reason for being is to stop music piracy. their tactic of suing grandmothers and students of course has zero effect. but according to you, since their intent is unfulfilled, they can't be prosecuted on the grounds of having an legally questionable purpose (nevermind being prosecuted for the secondary damage to their main purpose, of extortion of people of limited means)
no, your entire argument completely disregards the notion of intent, which is a completely valid legal concept
if someone attempts to squash your freedom of speech, they have violated the spirit of the law, if not technically successful
and they are therefore wrong, morally, and legally
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So you have to shop around for the doctor who will let you review them while you are bleeding out from a wound? This seems insane. I agree with your professors general thesis: that a business can put whatever limitations on its customers as long as such limitations are not on the face illegal nor so pervasive yet provide little to no benefit to the consumer that it is unfair to the consumer. However, in medicine this is not reasonable. It is not in societies best interests to make healthcare unaccessible unless you are willing to sign away rights even if you can pay for the service. If we are talking about general practitioner than maybe but it can never put the patient at increased risk to not sign.
Has this worked yet, or are you just, you know, hopeful?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
How can a contract's validity depend on the contents of other contracts. A contract ought to be valid or invalid in itself, subject to any appropriate legislation. A contract's validity depending on the behavior of other actors is fundamentally unfair.
When I'm trying to fix a technical problem with a computer, there's a series of questions I ask the user. At some point enough things fall into place that I'm able to deduce the problem, and what the user is saying simply becomes noise (at least until I confirm my diagnosis). A user trying to be tricky and contradict themselves at this point to see if I'm listening to them would probably be disappointed, but at least their problem gets solved.
Despite not listening to you, the doctor was able to make good, useful recommendations that you confirmed with a second opinion? In this case, I think it's simply a matter of different expectations. If you don't like how you're being treated then by all means go see another doctor. Hell a second opinion never hurts. This is not a case where you should rush out to give this doctor a negative review.
Your company provides you with health insurance. The health plan is your typical HMO. You don't get to choose your doctor. This is not an unusual situation. So what options do you have if they insist you sign one of these things? Your choices are sign it or not get any medical help at all. And don't say you have the option of paying for your own medical coverage. Have you seen the price of private medical insurance?
-- Will program for bandwidth
The health-care portion is probably less on average than what the average insured American pays for the same. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have really nice insurance in the US might be better off - it's depends on specifics (I happen to work for a University in an area that has a health insurance plan/medical network run by a local university-spawned medical organisation that's considered one of the best in the country for service/cost - I am very happy with my private insurance and healthcare. Most people and places are not nearly that fortunate).
Socialised medicine, as a general rule, is right for society, even if the wealthy and/or fortunate have something better.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Refusing to sit at the back of the bus isn't always a bad thing.
very good doctors that don't have excellent people skills, very good doctors that are jerks because they think they are so good
There's a reason why "bedside manner" has been considered an important skill since Hippocrates. Until we have a Star Trek medical tricorder that can tell us ABSOLUTELY everything that's going on inside a patient's body, then you're going to have to rely on patient reports for much of your diagnostic information.If your people skills are so bad that you can't hear your patients, or you engender so little trust that they don't tell you what you need to hear, then you aren't getting the whole picture, and that by definition makes you a bad doctor.
There's a reason why Gregory House works with four other doctors.
Beyond that, arrogance in a physician is LETHAL. Arrogance makes you secure in your first conclusion. Arrogance makes you resistant to disproving your own hyptheses. Arrogance means you don't consider new information, or information that contradicts your first assumptions. I wouldn't be surprised to find out physician arrogance was a leading cause of malpractice suits.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Posting a truthful negative review would validate what the patient knows, and what many consumers know - but who often ignore their own knowledge. They can keep ignoring it if not allowed to state the facts. There is no guarantee of good medical care, a diagnosis, proper or effective treatment, or even surviving medical testing or treatment. It is, however, pretty much guaranteed that any treatment requires payment regardless of the absence of satisfaction or performance guarantee. A dead patient is no reason for non-payment. Very little is required of the medical profession, but a great deal of money is required to pay these professionals.
That said, I can't see a skilled physician with integrity requiring the patient to sign away his rights.
Well, nobody ever said that freedom is free of cost.