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!"
I'm not sure about the laws in other states, but here in California I refuse to sign a lot of the paperwork all of the time. I always refuse to sign the waiver that asks me to give up my rights to sue over medical malpractice.
I think that as Americans we get conditioned to sign everything and rarely think about not doing it. Every time I refuse, I get weird looks, but I've never once been denied service.
This was actually brought up my commercial law class this morning. Our professor's opinion was that it was probably legal if just a few doctors were doing it. But, if all doctors in an area were doing it and it was not possible to obtain medical care without agreeing to this, it's possible that courts may not recognize the contract, because it was a "contract of adhesion".
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Please stop claiming First Amendment rights when the government is not involved.
No, and I'm not going to stop until the government passes a law saying I can't. :P
The enemies of Democracy are
Dude, been there, done that, except for the getting fired part.
Had a guy go off one time on the phone about Clinton's "cigar" and "I didn't have sexual relations" thing when I was on the phone with him. He asked me my opinion and I said I didn't really care, as his getting (or not getting) some nookie didn't have anything to do with the state of the country. He got really irritated that I thought that (should have said I have no opinion, in hindsight) and then started lambasting democrats, Clinton, etc, complete with f-bombs and all that. I just hung up on him. Not because I'm a Clinton apologist, but because I didn't care.
When they asked me about it, I said I accidentally hit the release button on my headset. They wanted to punish me for pissing off the customer, but since they couldn't prove the hangup was intentional, they couldn't. Win-win. I got to hang up on a butthead and received no punishment for it. (I quit that company not long after that) :)
Sent from your iPad.
I mean, how likely are you to be able to refuse to sign this, if your health is at stake?
How likely is it period to expect your physician to put this form under your nose before being willing to help you? It seems somewhat comparable to a EULA in that regard, seeing that there is no way to test the product other than by 'buying' it first. Can that be binding?
the NDA comparison doesn't seem to apply, since you don't generally sign NDAs in life-threatening situations, or situations in which you are perhaps intentionally kept uninformed of the consequences of signing such a thing.
And what happens then? Can your physician refuse to treat you? Can he do so always, only in 'non-life-threatening' cases, or never? It seems very murky, medical ethics-wise.
I pay for employer provided healthcare through my hard work, so I'm not getting it for free.
This is a reason I'd like to see government mandated group status for individuals. I was drawn to Obama last summer because one of this thoughts on healthcare was to open up the FEHB (federal employees) group to all Americans. Now, don't get me wrong, the federal full-service plan is expensive - but it is very good, and there are some HDHP options (I think). I am an employer (a small one), and I provide benefits for my employees, but for a while I was on my own. My rates were good (great, really, but I was thirty-something and healthy), but any year I became too expensive for my insurer I could have been dropped. Give people group status with such a large group has benefits primarily for the consumer, but the federal market of 2M+ insured is too big a chunk for most major healthcare companies to write off entirely.
If nobody got healthcare from their employers, and there were competition (as there is in FEHB) on the open market the system would be a bit more flexible. I don't think a single payer system will make healthcare better or more efficient. It's true that, to a certain extent, if you don't pay for top rate healthcare you don't get first rate healthcare. This is straying a bit for from the topic, as the ability to write reveiws or not does not (or should not) affect the rates you pay at the doctor's office, but it does speak to the breadth of choice. With more expensive coverage normally comes greater freedom of choice - which would allow you to vote with your feet. As with just about everything in life, the more you pay the more you can choose your path. I am not at the top of the money pile, so this is a bit of my own dogfood, but as mother used to say, "beggars can't be choosers." *shrug*
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?