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.
The First Amendment doesn't cover speech between two private parties. It covers speech that the government may not oppress. Please stop claiming First Amendment rights when the government is not involved.
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.
Just because it's on paper and signed, doesn't mean it's enforcible in court.
The First Amendment protects your rights versus Government, not in contracts with others.
Get it right.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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!
When I see something I don't like in those types of documments, I simply mark through it and initial. Don't know if it would hold up, but it's better than nothing. I've never had anyone say anything - probably because *they* don't read them afterward, which, of course, is not my problem ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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
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
Has this worked yet, or are you just, you know, hopeful?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I live in the UK, where I have no need of a contract with my doctor. I turn up, he treats me, I go away without signing a contract or paying a penny. I can say anything I like about him as long as it's not defamatory.
I piss off bigots.
I think that people have the wrong idea about contracts. Contracts don't make it so you CAN'T do something, they just make it so there are possible consequences for it. If I signed a waiver and then posted about the doctor this merely (possibly) gives him the right to take legal action for it. But in that regard the damage is already done. As we have witnessed countless times, once something it out on the web, the harder you try to suppress it the more attention it attracts. It really boils down to do you think someone will act on the contract, and if so, how bad are the possible consequences.
This is why the movie Sicko! was so popular and why the idea of health care reform is becoming more and more popular, despite attempts to categorically dismiss it as a "socialist" idea. People have enough problems getting proper medical care without having to worry about whether your doctor is going to require you sign away your rights in order to get treatment.
On one occasion when going to see a specialist for the first time, I was presented with the usual stack of paperwork before I was allowed to see the doctor. Luckily, I have an annoying habit of reading a document before I sign it, as one of the documents was (as another reader has described) an agreement to waive my right to sue for malpractice, and to instead agree to arbitration of their choosing. I signed the other documents and told the receptionist that I would need to have my lawyer look over the waiver before I would sign it, and she responded "Oh, okay. Just bring it in whenever; it's optional, anyway." Optional? Then why was it buried in this stack of required paperwork?!? (Yes, that question is rhetorical.) Needless to say, I opted not to sign it, and I got to see the doctor anyway.
This is the last thing that the health care industry needs right now as it battles a PR campaign against movies like Sicko! and all the various "investigative reporters" for everyone from your local news to CNN. My wife and I even made our own short film about it. (Go ahead; mod me a Troll, I don't care.)
- Dave
Evil is as eval("does");
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.
With my old HMO I was lucky to see her the same WEEK. The last time I asked for a physical in the US I was given an appointment six months in the future.
I piss off bigots.
...doesn't mean it's enforceable, or even legal. Clauses that violate a person's civil rights are never binding, even if accepted willingly.
If it's not an emergency, I won't sign such a form, and if the doc doesn't like it, there's others. If it IS an emergency, I'll sign, write the bad review if I get bad service, and argue about unconscionable terms later.
If the state doctor's association convinces every doctor in the state, or my insurance company convinces all its member doctors, to require such a form, I'll post the bad reviews under a pseudonym. If they're going to collude, I'm going to cheat.
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
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."