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.
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!
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
Just because it's on paper and signed, doesn't mean it's enforcible in court.
Yes, but just because something isn't enforceable in court that doesn't mean it can't be used to bludgeon somebody into submission. Lawsuits are expensive. Theoretically justice is the same for everybody but in practice only the rich can afford a court case if it drags on for too long so de-facto the justice system mostly favours the rich.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
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."
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?