Slashdot Mirror
Doctors To Patients: First, Do No Yelp Harm
theodp writes "When he walked into the dentist's office, Ars Technica's Timothy B. Lee was looking for cleaner teeth, but was shown the door after expressing outrage at being asked to first sign a 'mutual privacy agreement' calling for him to transfer ownership of any public commentary he might write in the future about his experience to the good doctor. Lee reports that similar censorious copyright agreements are popping up in doctors' offices across the country. 'Doctors and dentists are understandably worried about damage to their reputations from negative reviews,' writes Lee, but 'censoring patients is the wrong way for doctors to deal with online criticism.'"
Have these dentists never heard of the Streisand Effect? If anyone asked me to sign one of these I'd go right on Yelp and report it. Then everyone would know the professional in question has something to hide.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
when your own sig file outs you as a shill/troll, I really have to wonder what the internet is coming to.
We've got from people trolling legitimate users, to trolls trolling trolls, to trolls trolling themselves.
Chiropractors have no medical basis and can quite easily injure someone. It is classed as a new age medicine and has been shown to be dangerous by P&T Bullshit.
You should probably find another doctor or dentist.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
If I get bad enough service anywhere, I will post a review somewhere. Mostly products and restaurants, but I've done it for a doctor that gave me an appointment 3 months out and then was hours late.
I almost never do this with my real name. It can be my pseudonymous yelp, google, etc. account. No doctor would be able to know that some nick is my real name. Unless they want to get a subpoena for every negative review (actually I can see some asshole doctors doing this) there is no way to enforce this policy.
Man, you really need that seminar!
This type of thing should be illegal. First thing wrong is it hampers someones right to free speech. Second, a man should be subject to his actions. If he does something wrong, the public (future patients) have a right to know about it.
Granted, you have idiots and troublemakers who post unwarranted bad things, but they too should be subject to their actions.
These people are ridiculous!
The office complained that the main reason to ask people to sign these was that non-patients were fraudulently posting lies and negative information on message boards. When Timothy asked how this NDA would even apply to non-patients, they shut up and couldn't answer him.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/medical-justice-stifling-speech-patients-touch
"Whether you’re buying a car, looking for a nearby cafe or hunting for deals on sneakers, the Internet – and especially crowd-sourced online review sites like Yelp – can help you decide which businesses to patronize. But one company is taking away users’ voices when it comes to reviewing medical services. Medical Justice, started in 2002, is a member-based service for physicians that works to restrict unflattering reviews of participating doctors. Patients who go to these doctors sign a contract that assigns, in advance, the copyright in any online review to the physician being reviewed. A doctor who doesn’t like an unflattering post can then use a copyright infringement claim to have the post removed."
We've gone from "The customer is always right" to "All your base are belong to us".
Won't be long until the US Government institutes this policy with its agencies.
That's my thought too. Why would they need such a document unless their service is crap? If someone is maliciously writing bad reviews, chances are they don't even go to that doctor or dentist in the first place.
I read the internet for the articles.
There is absolutely no 100% safe and effective medicinal treatment for anything. No matter what it is, there is both the possibility it might not work, might have a side effect, or what not. To claim that any medical treatment is 100% safe and effective proves that you are just shilling.
Because many customers/patients blame the vendor/doctor when the product or service is fine the the customer/patient is an idiot.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Just wait until the ER wants you to sign this while you are bleeding from a headwound or some other serious injury.
Masturbation is a medical treatment and is 100% safe and effective.
If you don't sign your name but just some scrawl that says "rejected" or Go suck a lemon" or some such,
in sufficiently illegible form, then if they try to come back, you can point out you did not agree
to the terms. If they remark it doesn't look like your sig, then tell them too bad...
While I don't agree with such contracts, I really can understand why doctors would want to use them.
Back in the day (5-10 years ago), most doctor reviews were tempered by face-to-face interaction. "Hey Bill, how's your dentist?" -- "He's alright. Just ask to get gassed and all dentists are good, am I right?"
But come the internet with pseudonymity (or at least obscurity), people have deemed themselves connoisseurs of consumption-- veritable professional critics of the utterly mundane.
Yelp houses an asinine number of these people who will judge an entire business (small, large, chain, etc.) on single experiences. Their words will be filled with praise or disdain. Hate or Love. They photograph EVERYTHING, photograph and compare perfect omelets, critique the crispness of lettuce in salads, comfort of chairs in waiting rooms, and even banter of workers.
They scrutinize everything mundane because the quality of service and products are so similar, there's NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT otherwise. They polarize their opinions with "Avoid this place!!!" and "YOU MUST TRY THIS PLACE OUT!" and given the following on sites like Yelp, it actually affects business.
And it's not as though histories of reviews can be wiped. I know of one small bike shop that was, understandably, railed for its elitist attitudes towards budget bikes. When new management came in (bike hippy instead of Lycra-rider), the Bike Shop itself changed, but it still had to fight 3 years of bad reviews on Yelp.
I really don't blame doctors for attempting this route. There are better ways to go about it, though.
What are they thinking? The doctors aren't thinking outside the box enough. Really, instead of getting people to sign old-fashioned contracts, they should emulate the EULA. You know, by putting up a plaque in their office which says something like this:
Amateurs.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Agree with most of what is here, but one interesting point is that Doctor's do not have the right to respond, since they are bound by confidentiality. What if the terms of these contracts would free the doctors from the requirements of confidentiality if someone publicly comments?
Simple, sign a different name and make it hard to read as possible. If it ever goes to court, you can simply say that is not your signature. Are you lying under oath? Nope. Also the Judge would most likely be pissed in the first place having to hear the case.
That's not true. My health insurance company doesn't cover treatments which aren't backed by evidence. Which means that while they will cover complementary care of a certain type, they don't necessarily cover all of the services that the specialty provides. And there have been several cases in recent years where medicines pulled by the FDA were never covered because they didn't have sufficient evidence to back them.
Deaths and paralysis That's just from a quick google for "chiropractic harm", there are MANY MANY more.
Part of the problem is when ever someone is unhappy it is now much too easy to rant about your disapproval. However positive messages are harder to come by. For many these angry rants are not about facts but emotions of the time, and often a misunderstanding of the service they will receive.
A minor lapse in bedside manner, or just telling the patient something they didn't want to hear could effect their credentials.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Best comment so far.
Not if you intend to treat a broken wrist.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
This actually makes a fair bit of sense. you can whine and bitch all you want about your doctor, tell anything you want, and they are essentially legally prohibited from doing anything.
They can't even safely say that you're a patient! (granted if you've opened that door, they can walk through it). But any situations that lead to it, they CANNOT divulge without serious ramifications to them professionally.
Essentially they've been put into a place where people can (online) hold them down and punch them, and they cannot defend themselves.
How about change the contract, instead of you cannot say anything, you CAN.. but in doing so you waive ALL of your medical privacy rights so they can defend themselves (because patients .. or computer users NEVER lie.. right?).
Oh, that doesn't sound so good? you just want to be able to punch away? bitch and moan with your lies.. That's what I thought.
I got in early.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
So, you end up being held in contempt of court after being held liable for libel. Good plan. And probably perjury as well.
I don't personally see any reason why this wouldn't be legally enforceable.
Masturbation is a medical treatment and is 100% safe and effective.
I will avoid the potential awkwardness of calling into question other aspects of that statement, and instead assert simply that masturbation is not a medical treatment.
It would be unenforceable. You would have been forced to sign under duress to seek potentially life saving treatment, if you were able to sign at all.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
That would be invalid, as it would be signed under duress.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Look at it from the doctor's POV. Due to doctor patient confidentiality, they cannot respond to whatever is written about them or even deny or confirm that such and such a person is their patient. And whilst I do think that there are bad doctors, there are far more idiots that are willing to blame good doctors when the fact of the matter is that the doctor has done the best job that current medical science enables him to do.
cervical (neck) adjustments
Ok, I'm finally convinced. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. You're unquestionably a troll.
Even a chiropractor would know the difference between a clavicle and a cervical adjustment.
That would just make the judge laugh even harder.
The real fun thing here is that the doctors and the dentists are the ones being scammed, by the lawyers pushing this paperwork, as if the words being on the paper actually make them mean something.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
From TFA: Dr. Ken Cirka
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
You realize health insurance pays for placebos as covered drugs, right?
I'm pretty sure any contract signed while bleeding from a serious injury would not be upheld in court. Duress, competancy, etc.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
While I have no doubt that proper chiropractic technique is safe and effective, there is always the possibility that the chiropractor didn't use proper technique or doesn't use the correct technique for the problem. That and I can say from personal experience that different chiropractors have different techniques and some are better then others. My last chiropractor was actually a husband/wife team and even though they tried to use the same technique, there was clear differences between the two of them. While they were OK (neither harmed me) I honestly have a hard time recommending them because I didn't get the same results as the guy I had used prior who unfortunately moved out of state.
My current chiropractor is much better and is far more open to listening to me and working with me and my life style to improve my health. Frankly he listens to me while my old one wanted to tell me how to live (specifically stop racing motorcycles).
Another reason I would give a negative review of my old chiropractor is that while he correctly had me get a MRI for my lower back, he then dismissed the analysis by the neurologist THAT HE RECOMMENDED and then made no changes in adjusting me. After I changed chiropractors, I had a new analysis done by a different neurologist (recommended by my current chiropractor) and the result is he changed how he adjusts me and the results have been fantastic.
Long story short, it's more then about someone causing your physical harm, but rather adjustment table side manner and technique which works for the patient.
Lastly, I'm really tired of the "us vs. them" mentality that chiropractors tend to have with the medical community. I'm not paying you so I can listen to how poorly you're treated by evil Big Pharma or people with Ph.D.'s. Bad mouthing others is a poor way of building a positive and long term relationship with a client.
I'm betting that a case can be made that this at least some such signatures were obtained under duress and therefore not valid.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Thanks a lot. You posted this in jest, but this exact EULA is now hanging in my dentist's office.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
To be held liable for libel, they'd have to prove your statements were false. Which we'll assume they aren't, or you wouldn't be making them.
He is a troll and you are ignorant.
Demons of stupidity be gone from this man, rAmen!
Educate thyself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical
I do think that it is tough to give definitive bad reviews on diagnoses and outcomes of treatments due to the complexity of our bodies. However, I think it is completely fair to give reviews based on the experiences with the staff and office itself. If you wait an hour after your appointment was scheduled, if the nurse or doctor was rude, or if the office was not in a clean condition, I want to be able to read those reviews.
Used to be- "Hey doc/dentist, [whatever you did] didn't help. And you were kind of snarky about it." Ya know, human communication and all that fancy word talking?
Now- "My tooth still hurts, so I'm going to post bad reviews instead of going back and asking it to be fixed. Or get it fixed, and still say bad stuff."
Someone above said they never use their real name in bad reviews. And probably would be the first person to complain about (at least semi-) anonymous reviews about their service.
There are bad doc/dentists. There are bad everywhere. Just don't go back. Unless your dentist or doc causes irreparable harm, then you go get 'em. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. Not enough Novacaine --> little bit more pain --> "HE IS HORRIBLE AND WILL EAT YOUR PUPPIES ALIVE!!!!"
But I also think this non-disclosure thing is bunk, too.
Everyone seems to just want to go over the top nowadays.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Ok, I learned something new today.
Or, alternatively, chiropractors are nothing more than pseudo-scientific babbling witch doctors who shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of anyone with actual back problems.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You would have to go to court and spend thousands of dollars you may not have to fight such a thing.
Legal or not, the mere cost of fighting it will silence many people.
You are the most persistent and dedicated slashdot troll in history.
:)
I get a kick out of your posts because my wife is going to one of those whole-health chiropractors right now. They tell her they can cure everything from the flu to hangnails by popping her spine. So I LOL at your posts.
There's an "us vs. them" because chiropractors are voodoo witch doctors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I have an excellent family doctor now. I and others sing his praises online - with the caveat that because he is so popular, getting an appointment is impossible. Same goest for my current dentist. I love her to bits. I dread ever moving and having to find other doctors and dentists. Neither of them have any such sign or agreement - because they don't need it!
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Gee I masturbated with a broken wrist and the Dr was amazed at the fast recovery time.
You cant sign away your basic rights. Who cares what scumbag lawyer the doctor hired to write up that drivel. It's not enforceable. You can not sign away your rights to free speech.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Invite the suing lawyer to your place for lunch, to discuss things. And make sure you have a pistol sitting on the coffee table within arms reach while discussing signatures under distress.
I'm not sold on this. If I was a dentist, lets say, and I want good reviews, I'll ask my customers to please rate me on such and such a site. You will _always_ have bad reviews and as a person who frequently reads reviews, I know how to filter out good and badly written reviews. If there are 10 great reviews and one complaining that the service wasn't covered under insurance or something like that, I wouldn't hold it against the dentist.
What's even more interesting, is that I actively seek out the bad reviews. When it comes to game reviews, for example, I go to the compilation sites like gamerankings etc, and purposely read the reviews that rated the game the worst. You can tell a lot about a game by the way the critical reviewers tear it apart. Maybe they only gripe about the graphics or something that just doesn't matter to me. If that's all they can muster, I can usually count on a quality experience.
Same happened when I was searching for a new dentist. The one I picked had some negative reviews, but they all boiled down to "while they were friendly and made you feel at ease.. (some complaint about money here)." So the negative review may or may not hurt "my" dentist in the long run, but I picked him because of the CONTENT of those negative reviews. The worst thing people could say was some of the stuff he did didn't end up covered fully under their particular insurance plans, that sucks, but it's your job to make sure the work will be covered before submitting to it!
In the end, the ones that censor reviews, usually have a reason why they fear them.
If it's emergency care, Duress?
Realities just a bunch of bits.
Because many customers/patients blame the vendor/doctor when the product or service is fine the the customer/patient is an idiot.
Absolutely true, but if the doctor/dentist's solution is to have patients sign legally dubious, trust-destroying contracts like this, they are also overly litigious idiots.
That's not always true. There are a ton of good doctors and dentists out there. Just a handful of some that are really bad and do deserve to have their licenses removed.
It is the bad patients and lawyers. It is the patients that go to webMD and think they have a certain ailment and then the doctor runs tests and tells them it's something else, then the patient sues. Patients over exagerate problems and concerns.
What's the point of practicing if you are going to get sued because of some idiot who read something on the internet???
That's why dentists and doctors have such papers, even release papers.
You can still sue for malpractice even if you signed something before the operation and the doctor did screw up.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
I kind of understand where these Dentists are coming from. I used to work at a pool construction company that was heavily impacted by unwarranted negative reviews online.
Pool owners are the worst; they're usually well off, used to getting their way, and generally don't understand how construction time tables work. They usually start thinking of a pool in March, or April, and want it done and open for Memorial Day or the 4th of July. They usually don't understand we have more than one customer who all also want their pool done on the same timeframe. Further, they don't understand we can't work in bad weather, which means time tables tend to slip in the rainy season.
So inevitably, people get delayed and it's the end of the world for them because they won't have their pool open for their all important Memorial Day BBQ. So they fly online and rant and rave about how awful our business is, because they couldn't read their contract. And of course, if you type our name into Google, the first three results that come up are from ripoffreports.com or a similar site.
What's worse is these stay online forever. We've made most all of our customers happy in the end, and they've told us they would take down or redact the negative reviews, but even they can't. So because they flew off the handle despite our goodwill efforts, we're the ones that have to suffer.
So, while I feel like the Doctor's approach isn't the most tactful, I understand where he's coming form.
Not exactly....
Orgasms touch the reward center of the brain, releasing strong amounts of dopamine. Dopamine is essential for living what is essentially a "happy" and "normal" life, positively affecting social behavior, cognitive function, etc
You will be the one doing the suing. They will have your comments removed and you will have to sue to get your ownership right back.
Any other bright ideas? Hopefully ones that don't end up with the victim in jail.
it probably took him weeks to get that particular tee time.
if you've got enough money. They'll sue you, and if they've got more money/lawyers then you, they win.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
what do they think would happen if they tried suing you based on it?
A letter from the hospital's council is likely to have the same effect on many people, contract or not. The presence of an unenforceable contract isn't really a game changer.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
This would be a wonderful indicator of whether or not I should trust a so called "medical professional". After all, if he/she cannot trust his/her patient, why should it work the other way around?
I masturbate with my genitalia and the doctor told me to stop while he was looking at my knee.
Briliant!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So, write a very long, detailed review. Submit it to the dentist in question. Select highlights to quote in your blog with a reference to the office where curious people can call for access to the entire article.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Looks like you're wrong: cervical adjustments in chiropractic
This is obviously stupid and censorship. But it does suck to have internet feedback as a doctor. When I search for my name on the internet, the first ten hits on google are a doctor ranking site and various copycats that mirror it. I have only one rating - my name shows up with one out of five stars and an angry tirade by a patient with psychiatric problems who became angry with one of our nurses before I even walked in the room. She accuses me of racism (and we are both white!), ignorance, etc. when I actually was quite accommodating to her quite angry demands. And due to health care laws in the US I cannot say anything in my defense.
So, basically it sucks to have your name plastered all over google as a racist without having the ability to mount a defense. But censorship is not the way to go. I think the medical profession just has to grin and bear it. Or start astro-turfing...
and their reward will be very quiet waiting rooms.
Looks like you're late, h4rr4r beat you to the punch.
What you need in cases like this is an accurate sample of the customer base. People who are pleased are usually less likely to go find a place to "host" a review; whereas the people who just like to complain will voice their opinion where they feel people are reading. This reminds me of the university I used to attend, where some people would set up questionnaire tables in one of the main travel hotspots. These people would ask for the opinion of students on things like abortion or other hot topics. Clearly, a self-serve basis gives an incredibly unrepresentative sample of students (most of who are too busy to stop for something that means nothing to them). To get an accurate representation of a population of humans, you need to force everyone to participate, force a random sample to participate, or give some sample enough of a reason to participate in the survey (e.g. $100 for a 5 minute survey). Relying on a self-submission sample seems to draw in the extremely opinionated/motivated to participate; which on the internet means unpleasable, bitter, angry troll-connoisseurs.
On a side note, I wonder if there are any papers that compare the sample results for a (non-compensated) self-submission topic (e.g. abortion) versus a forced or compensated sample group.
I have a dentist, and a doctor who have pissed me off for one reason or another, and in each case after thinking about the situation I called and explained my problem, feelings etc about that situation. Whether it was about treatment, or the cost of a procedure. In the case of a dentist I was made to feel understood, and appreciated. In the case of the doctor who was not born in this country, and did not share my feelings and basically told me i was wrong, I posted my feelings, evidence and named names, and found another doctor. That doctor has since left this area, for a more metropolitan environment where he does not have to deal with us local yokels. In each case I had signed such an agreement without realizing what I was signing, and in each case I did not care. I posted my feelings evidence according the rules of the internet posting service, and gave my real name etc so people who came across the reviews would have more confidence that the review was genuine and not some paid for result.
If anyone uses sites like Yelp much you quickly realize how to sift through the idiot reviews. The ones where the person gives 1 star to a dentist and then complains about going back to work the next day after having their wisdom teeth removed and getting dry sockets while carrying 100lb bundles of shingles to a roof on a construction project. I've seen reviews where people rail against a coffee shop talking about their horrible service and disgusting coffee, but the whole complaint centers around another customer either being rude or unthoughtful like talking loudly on their cell phone or using a six top table by themselves in a packed coffee shop and not letting anyone have a seat. There are plenty of people who have no idea how to review a place without getting all emotional about it. Still, it seems like a web savvy shop would be able to address the few bad reviews they get, of course if all they get is bad reviews then maybe there is a bigger problem then Yelp they should focus on.
NDAs are a little different, at least in my mind. An NDA only gags free speech in so much as it can cause direct harm to a company. If I develop some super secret process that allowed me to turn rainbows into gold, and in the process of me contracting you to help with a part of it, you blabbed to the world how it's done, that would cause me direct financial harm.
It's my understanding that you cannot order someone under an NDA (at least, it's not enforceable) to not talk about things that either 1) would be covered as protected speech or 2) wouldn't pretty specifically be related to the information for which the NDA was signed. For example, an NDA saying that you couldn't express an opinion about a political party should be unenforceable. Also, if I am, for example, manufacturing computer equipment, I would think that an NDA keeping you from talking about what flavor gum is your favorite would be rather unenforceable. But then, IANAL, so YMMV.
As for coercion, Timothy Lee made an awesome point. When you go to a doctor's office, you are likely in need of medical help. I agree with him that this puts this "contract" in a particularly bad light. It's easy to imagine someone in a spot in which they feel like they have to sign the contract in order to prevent damage to one's health, possibly even life.
Personally, I'd be for legislation that makes such contracts explicitly illegal.
There is a better way to solve this given that both parties have some legitimate interest they want protected. Customers want the ability to complain, providers want the opportunity to remedy complaints before permanent comments are published. So enter into a contract that says that customers will give providers a week's written notice before they publish a negative review, and an opportunity for the provider to remedy any perceived defect in the service. That kind of agreement shouldn't rankle either party too much AND would probably lead to happier transactions to boot.
A contract is not valid if it does not have a valid AND LEGIBLE signature. So that non-disclosure paper would be voided by the judge and you, the patient, would not be guilty of breach-of-contract since no contract exists.
You should have prefaced that comment with the statement "I am not a lawyer," because, quite obviously, you are not a lawyer.
In short: wrong. An illegible signature might make a judge rule the contract invalid if you use the illegibility to argue that you were not the person who signed the contract. If you actually were the one who signed it, of course, saying you weren't would be perjury on your part.
As soon as someone starts complaining they can't get health coverage because some Dr. wants to censor them, there will be lawsuits.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I love to talk with the managers/owners of restaurants, and have reviewed plenty on Yelp and Urbanspoon. Of course they are always very concerned about their bad reviews, and looking for ways to make the bad reviews go away. My advice to them is always the same. Leave those people alone, they are already unhappy. Rather, get your happy customers to leave good reviews and drown them out.
I've encouraged several businesses to pay the $5 for a Yelp or Urbanspoon sticker to put on their door. To claim their owner pages, and use them to post specials and send updates to regulators. To drop a reward on their "duke" on Yelp. You know what? In 2-3 months they easily amass tens or hundreds of positive reviews. Now the situation is 150 good reviews to the one bad one they were worried about, and their reputation is just fine.
The only reason these are such a big deal for most businesses is that people who feel they have been wronged are more likely to speak up. If you have only one review and it's bad, well, you look like a bad business. You will never satisfy 100% of your customers, so just get the 99% that you do to drown them out.
Easy, cheap, and builds loyalty with your regulars. Plus, you now have great reviews, so when people visit the area or move there and have nothing to go on but the reviews you'll be one of the first they try.
Use the technology, don't fight it.
Correction: Romney care.
And the idea was a campaign platform of another Republican: Nixon.
Of course the teabaggers forget this.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Funny story I was sitting with a table of girls at a bar (hard to believe, don't worry the one I knew was fat so it's still believable), one of the girls goes to a chiropractor all the time and the other works for one. Tired of hearing them talk about it I quoted, pretty much word for word, one of your posts about subluxations allowing for the conditions required for bacteria to grow, and are the real cause of ailments rather than the bacteria themselves. Of course I said it very sarcastically. All four of these girls started yelling about how I don't know anything, subluxations are real and do cause problems. That's about the time I stood up and went to another table.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
I hope you will tell us if somone comes up with a better comment!
Proper adjustments are critical to your well being but the Big Pharma controlled Medical Community won't tell you this because they can't put chiropractic care in a pill
you know how I know you are full of shit?
chiropractors are nothing more than overpriced jumped up masseuses who lack the integrity to market their service for what it is and claim fraudulent health benefits
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
That is because placebos are effective. They are so effective scientific studies have to be controlled to eliminate the placebo effect from affecting the outcome. Many drugs are not much more effective than placebo.
I personally believe that this explains the popularity of quack medicine. Crystals, magnets, prayer, etc. actually help if you believe that they will.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I would be curious if the threat of withholding health services could be considered duress.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
When you seek out bad reviews, don't you tend to find a whole lot of ones where someone is stuck reviewing a genre they don't like or have some weird complaint that doesn't affect the game properly? I tend to see that a lot on places like Metacritic. If you look up StarCraft II and the review complains about how annoying it is that you're controlling little people instead of getting down in the action and shooting stuff personally, and how using the keyboard and mouse are too complicated, well, I think it was just the wrong reviewer for the job.
I read the internet for the articles.
Have a friend or family member post a review for you, saying in their own words what your experience was. The information comes from you, but the copyright actually belongs to the writer.
While I agree in principal, I disagree in practice. Your argument is that if the dentist or doctor does a good job, then he/she will not have any complaints. I think most would accept though that there are some people that will never be satisfied. Also, doctors, and dentists, like people, can make mistakes and have bad days sometimes.
One could take the attitude that the only hope is that the positive reviews outweigh the negative reviews. Some may be uncomfortable with this though and may try to prevent negative reviews from happening in the first place. Both approaches have been tried and the results often vary.
As another poster mentioned, the dental and medical fields are a particular challenge when it comes to this issue because doctors and dentists are bound my privacy restrictions that patients aren't. Patients can make whatever claims they want and doctors are unable to respond. They do not have the choice to respond with facts - a choice that most companies in other industries would have.
This is an inherent problem with Internet based rating systems. When you rely on these rating systems, you are taking the advice of random people on the Internet. That person may be a sensible person. Or they may be the owner of the establishment in question. Or they may be the owner of a competing establishment. We know all about that here on Slashdot. I don't know how intelligent/unintelligent people are if/when they critically process the reviews themselves.
So about a year ago I finally decided to use my dental insurance to just get my teeth "cleaned." To my surprise, it's not that simple.
The Dentist I had selected (through my insurance) was:
Dental Group of Arcadia 440 E Huntington Dr Arcadia, CA 91006-3776
Dental Group of Arcadia is individually owned by Farhad Manavi D.D.S., II, Inc.
It looked very nice and was very modern!
So once I made an appointment and show up and it turns out they can't just clean your teeth - there's a lot to do before that! They have to take a full set of X-Rays before they can even look at the teeth themselves! Before I continue, let me give you a little back story...
When I was 9? I was going regularly to the dentist. It wasn't a bad experience really, I wasn't traumatized or in extreme pain when I went - not that I remember anyways. But I do remember being told that taking unnecessary X-Rays could cause harm, so they only took what they needed. Years later I end up majoring in manufacturing and learn through it's cousin metallurgy that X-Rays could indeed be bad... So those things stuck in my head.
Back to my story. So when they said first they need full set of X-Rays I asked why? I just wanted to get my teeth cleaned. They explained it's so they can see the condition of my teeth. When I said they're fine, I just want a cleaning they said "no, because you probably have problems you're not aware of." So 45 minutes later we come to a compromise, they'll take a minimum of X-Rays and go from there.
Now I might be silly, but I know that X-Rays lead to more problems which lead to $$$. Also, since it's insurance they're going to try to claim as many expenses as aren't needed. That was my real objection.
So after the minimal set of X-Rays they technician goes "mmm mmmmmm." And I'm like "what do you see?" "I see a few problems. Doesn't your left side hurt?" HAhaha! No, it doesn't. So after arguing with her about my mouth/teeth/feet not hurting we're done and I'm finally able to see the dentist.
By the way, when I made my appointment they were aware it was my first time to this office. They acknowledged it and said I would be getting my teeth cleaned on that day. They didn't however do that. Once I showed up for my appointment it turns out that nothing is ever done on your first visit - you only get a "check-up/inspection." Then you can make appointments for what you needs.
So here's what I needed, according to the X-Rays and Dentist: I apparently have 13 cavities and am in need of 3 root canals, one of them immediately before I lose the tooth. So while there she referred me to the in-house specialist who could perform the RC because it was apparently very advanced.
Let me give you some more back story. So when I was a kid, I apparently got a gold crown? on one of my molars. While eating/chewing on some delicious candy, it came off. I was like "this is some ghetto workmanship!" So back to the dentist I go. Guess what gang? There was a sign on the door that said "Closed due to Mal practice." It was an official looking sign and had a lot of stuff on it, but that was in a huge font. So that was the end of dentists for me. Not because I didn't like them or was worried about them, because that was my dentist in front of Toys R Us! There's no reason to go back now!
But that wasn't where my mistrust of dentists started. No it started many years later when we found out one of my sisters friends also had the very same dentist but had a lot of dental work done because she had braces. Apparently, he didn't do a very good job as the repairs to the damage done cost some $ to fix. Guess what? My sister also had a little brace-work done as well! And yep, she also had a bad job but since it was very little the damage wasn't so bad.
So, now I'm thinking
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
I doubt that. My refusal to respond to circumstances outside my control cannot constitute duress, otherwise patients would just say "I only signed in order to get treatment, I would never have agreed to pay this much otherwise."
I did RTFA. (yesterday, actually). A better subtitle might have been: "Scummy legal group duping doctors to request legally-unenforceable waivers from patients. Don't get caught in the loop." Doctors (or their business managers) need to be educated about why these waivers are unnecessary, unenforcable, and just bad business. Patients need to be informed and willing to fight back so this type of legal chicanery dies a quick death.
Yeah man, Big Pharma and the "Medical Community" are holding me back from the full potential of my alternative medicine practice. They claim my karate chops to the balls aren't a safe and effective way of curing headaches. Everyone that visits me no longer complains of a headache, so what gives!?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
What are you, a butler on some English grand estate? A doctor or bike shop owner isn't your "better", hopefully you regard them as some kind of fellow professional. If you enter into a business relationship with some kind of class warfare in mind, you're going to get treated like dirt.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
a clavicle is a collarbone. cervical is the name attached to the uppermost 7 vertebrae - that is, that neck.
Doctors treated women with 'pelvic massages' for centuries, a treatment that apparently helped with a wide variety of illnesses. Take a look at the history of the vibrator and feel a certain relief that you're not generally greeted by steam powered masturbatory equipment at your average doctors office these days.
I think part of it is whether or not the patient is qualified to review the doctor... Doctors get years of specialized training, but as a patient with none, what if I think my doctor sucks because he or she didn't prescribe medicine to make me numb right away.
The doctor should, and very well may be, using their best judgement for my treatment, and they could be making the right decisions, something that'll help me, but won't make me feel immediately feel better.
Or if I go with the wrong expectations, that the doctor will give me some drug I read about on the internet, but the doctor's opinion is that that's not the right medication for me. Do I give them a bad review because my expectations and knowledge were wrong?
Fair? Really?
Just wait and watch all the comments pour in that a doctor is rude and insulting when he tells someone he is concerned about their weight.
It's however an effective method for preventing prostate cancer, which makes it close enough to a medical treatment for me. Especially when doing it while watching Latex Nurses IV.
Show me just ONE DOCUMENTED case of chiropractic causing harm to a patient.
May I direct you to this man's entire library of work? Neck Adjustments, ahoy!
Untrue I think. You can't trust Yelp users to be objective. No one posts "I had a mediocre experience, they got the job done, ho hum". And for a dentist it's extremely rare for someone to say "best day ever!" No, most reviews of dentists are going to be "lousy experience." Why should anyone trust what they read on the internet anyway, especially from a site so completely disreputable as Yelp?
This reminds me of professor evaluations at college. Chock full of opinions that the professor is ugly, gives them too much homework, isn't fun enough, etc.
You would have to go to court and spend thousands of dollars you may not have to fight such a thing.
Legal or not, the mere cost of fighting it will silence many people.
no, the doctor would have to go to court when 'you' break the contract by exercising your free speech.
you could also make the claim that you were not in the right state of mind to be making decisions such as the one you were forced to make in order to receive care.
In my opinion you likely would not even need a lawyer to get this case thrown out of court, and I guarantee any ambulance chasing lawyer would JUMP at the chance to represent you and make a counter suite for emotional damages and trauma if it comes to court.
The fact that your insurance company covers chiropractic services does not in any way constitute proof such services are in fact backed by evidence. The only way to tell the validity of chiropractic is to look directly at the alleged evidence.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Wow.
Under the DMCA, a person "must certify, under penalty of perjury, that he holds the relevant copyrights" in order to get a takedown of copyrighted material. These medical professionals are using the DMCA, via these agreements, in order to legally remove negative reviews of them,
It takes pure evil genius to come up with a way to completely abuse the spirit (while complying 100% with the letter!) of this ghastly law in this way.
Fold that contract into your pocket and suggest that you will not go on the Internets and other communication mediums available to you questioning what that particular professional has to hide.
Dead or horribly disfigured patients? A fake diploma? Substance abuse problems? I'm just asking questions here...
Naturally... Suggest that your silence comes at a price.
Remember to leave the office then "in order to leave them time to consider their options" - so they don't get any bright ideas once you are under sedation in their chair/on their table.
And if he/she decides to get smart and call authorities - simply deny everything, accuse him/her of blackmail (hey, you have it in writing) and make a huge fuss about it all.
Media will love that story even more than just some doctor playing lawyer.
Now, if you could manage to include a lawyer playing doctor in there somehow, you could be looking at national coverage and possibly even movie rights.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A toothache could also be considered distress.
I automatically get an email after a visit asking me to review the experience, publicly and anonymously after ever visit. It's a great policy because it encourages regular or occasional feedback that would balance out any one time negative. Besides, he's awesome and the highest rated in the city as a result of being good and being smart about encouraging people to comment on services.
Seems to me the solution would be to post "I wanted to use this [dentist,doctor,occultist] but they required that I sign the following agreement: [...]
I suspect you'll see backpedaling immediately.
Or, sign the agreement, then post anonymously.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Given the amount of evidence that the doctor's office would be able to provide, I doubt such statements would hold up in court. This isn't like signing a petition where the signature gatherer doesn't have any way of knowing that you are who you say you are. Typically they'd have their appointment ledger as well as testimony from both the receptionist as well as the doctor that the patient was in. And the receptionist also testifying that the forms were filled out by the patient.
Correct, in fact I'd wager that if you were to look through the signature samples that are stored for verifying voters' signatures, that only a fraction of them would be legible. A signature only needs to be a recognizable scrawl, and purposefully creating a wrong one could definitely lead to fraud charges being leveled.
Is the requirement to pay your bills really a contract? Is it just implicit acceptance of a contract that when you are found almost dead on the side of the road and unable to respond and you have medical bills? Are you speaking as a doctor or a lawyer, because it sounds like you're talking as an idiot. I guess if you want to be pedantic about the word "any" then fine, let me rephrase.
Any contract with clauses not related to payment in the form of cash that are inline with standard prices for similar services, liability of the doctor for damage done during procedures or permission for providing the services requested would most likely not be enforceable in court due to the varying factors of duress, competency and consideration when signing a contract while bleeding from a serious wound, where serious wound is defined as a wound that is extremely painful, has potential to do further permanent damage, or is life threatening.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Yes, but at the moment this is just dental care and I don't know of any dental problem to which this would apply.
Sorry, but there are far too many stories about how you can buy reviews, both good and bad, and Yelp can't catch them all. I can see why Doctors are concerned. Are they taking the right course of action, not in my book. I heard two stories just today about micro transaction sites where you can buy reviews for less than a quarter, even going so far as stating what you wanted. Another story stated how Yelp was removing reviews from their patients that were positive.
There are also numerous articles on how someone representing Yelp may be asking for money to take down bad reviews or allow good ones to stay.
So in other words, it might have been a good service until people figured out how to game it. It might have been a good one until someone on the inside learned how to make extra money on it. Yet another site where its best to ignore the very good and very bad and aim for whats in the middle.
Search for Mechanical Turk and tell me, would you as a Doctor not be afraid? So what can they do?
Here, to save some time http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/05/23/how-to-ethically-improve-your-customer-reviews/
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
... your doctor is Jack Kevorkian.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'll put this in a way that Slashdot will get. Remember one of those horrible clients you had at some point? The guy who said "Create me a website" and picked apart your sleek design until it looked like something from Angelfire, complete with "In Construction" tape? The guy who wanted you to secure his network, but didn't want you to use passwords on the wireless, nor MAC filtering, nor pay for any key management services? The fellow who insisted that you spend all bloody day doing something outside your job description for clueless people managed by even more clueless management?
What if they could instantly review you negatively in an easy way? What if Gerald from Accounting decides you didn't get to his MS Excel error swift enough and proclaims for all the world to see "X is lazy, bad at his job, made me wait for HOURS for a simple task. Never hire him!". Should that really be fair and acceptable? But..you cry "Gerald is an idiot who didn't know all the circumstances involved and I wasn't even given a chance to defend myself... now I can't get a job!?" .... Bingo.
Many IT, engineering, and science workers, even at the Professional level, don't have the same kind of "presence" in the community as physicians and lawyers. Most of them operate their own offices or groups, and the public is very, very interested in trying to figure out a "good" doctor from a bad one. Our old friend capitalism has extended from those "people search" pay services, to "doctor search" ones and created a huge marketing blitz like "Find out how many patients have filed a complaint...could YOUR doctor be bad?!" Remember that the most frivolous of malpractice lawsuits, with million dollar judgements are awarded generally by making the jury feel sorry for the patient, regardless if their troubles were the result of the doctor at all. Doctors are paying between $10,000 - 100,000 USD yearly in order to deal with this. When ill-informed patients can get million dollar judgments upheld through emotional pleas, it doesn't bode well for doctors trying to protect themselves from incorrect reviews. Professionals can most certainly be bad at their job and screw up, but when some philistine off the street walks in, demands the latest prescription they saw on the evening news, doesn't want to undertake proper therapy, is generally non-compliant etc... and then turns around and writes a scathing review of the physician, this shouldn't occur.
What's needed is a single, open-source solution regarding doctor information that protects physicians and patients. Perhaps one could be set up by the American College of X (Surgeons, Gynecologists etc) for their members, or by state organizations for all in state etc... Each physician would have a homepage not unlike that of a social network, where they could place information about their practice, directions, contact info, and any little blurbs they wish to share. Each physician would be given a hash that changes monthly to place on his business cards and give to patients to use as a password when visiting his page. Doing so allows the patient to bind his or her account to be able to comment on/to the physician in a private area. They would have to use their real name and use the doctor's private area password, to ensure they were really patients. In the private area there could be HIPPA-compliant encrypted channels for medical communication and questions, such as in-house email and instant messaging, should the doctor want to make themselves available online. Patients can also write reviews, with some rules in place. Positive reviews will show up on the doctor's homepage (docs can omit/hide them if they wish) and the patient can decide if they want their name to be public or not. Negative reviews are more comprehensive and will be restricted to the private area. Those who file a negative review must be willing to correspond with the physician again to help reach a resolution or understanding - sniping and leaving will lead to the comment being erased. The doct
to describe my husband's dissatisfaction with his doctor, on Yelp. And he can document my dissatisfaction with mine. No contracts broken.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Since you started the game, are you posting as a doctor or lawyer? Or are you the idiot?
How was the original post rational? It's all just fucking opinion, you douche.
"But come the internet with pseudonymity (or at least obscurity), people have deemed themselves connoisseurs of consumption-- veritable professional critics of the utterly mundane."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
"Yelp houses an asinine number of these people who will judge an entire business (small, large, chain, etc.) on single experiences."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
They scrutinize everything mundane because the quality of service and products are so similar, there's NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT otherwise."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
I'm sorry, the original post is emotional, negative vitriol full of opinion and zero reasoning or facts. The only difference is that the original post agrees with your bias, whereas my post doesn't..
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So would the one from the dentist be unenforceable if I claimed duress from extreme plaque?
If you are British.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Ya, I do run into that a lot. But that's why I don't mind the bad reviews. If you put up a review that casts a negative light on something and I read that review, if I come out of that thinking your negative points were superficial and not really relevant (or to your point, just bashing the genre or controller they don't like), I'm going to think wow, that was a negative review, and that's all they had to say about it? That in my mind HELPs the game/product/service.
Then again, if the bad reviews are well thought out and bring up really good points, say, the doctor likes to make up things you don't believe you have (had those before) or puts the sales pitch on you for whitening, etc, or maybe fondles you while you're out, ya, ok. Those I could see doctors wanting to control, I mean, those would be bad for business. But general negative reviews with no real basis in practical reality, so what? No one has a perfect record (even if they did, I'd be suspicious). Let the negative reviewers speak their peace and let the positive ones drown them out.
What worries me more is the clause about paying his legal fees if he successfully sues me. As one with the most money always seems to win these things it seems to me that the only way to take him on is to gamble on raising millions to fight him off. Most likely he is more able to raise millions than I am. It's just about raising the ante for suing him.
Nullius in verba
I'm a doctor, and I've never heard of this before, but it sounds like a bad idea. It is going to piss off at least some of your patients, without doing anything to actually prevent people from saying anonymous bad things about you.
However, in a slightly related vein, I am definitely in favor of having patients sign arbitration agreements before they receive non-emergency services. Most people understand that lawsuits are a huge problem for doctors, and aren't surprised to see physicians take defensive action. But mainly, an arbitration agreement really is valuable if a potential lawsuit arises. Instead of having a case go before a jury of twelve people selected to be as ill-informed and uneducated as possible, it is decided by a panel of three attorneys chosen to have real experience and expertise in the matter at hand. Bad care will still result in a settlement for the plaintiff, but there is much less chance of the "lotto effect" where a lay jury decides on a huge settlement based on the emotions of the case.
While it's critical that patients and other consumers have the right to seek legal remedies for possible malpractice, I don't think lay juries can be relied on to reach consistent, reproducible decisions. We might as well decide cases by rolling dice.
IANAL, but...
Two good examples: real estate transfers and copyright transfers, both of which require specific written language.
The dentist's contract is inconsistent with the copyright law's requirements for copyright transfer (and hence is null and void, as a matter of law).
It is extortion for the doctor or dentist to use his position of authority so to attempt to coerce the patient in a manner contrary to law.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Clearly you aren't aware that on the internet, we're all lawyers, doctors, and nuclear-biologists.
I genuinely expected you to say you were a doctor since you said "My refusal". You gave up too easily, I was prepared to let you win this one.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
http://xkcd.com/501/
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Masturbation is a medical treatment and is 100% safe and effective.
Safe?, I've gotten blisters on my penis from it you insensitive clod!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Do you nerds get upset if your doctor has malpractice insurance? Christ.
By accepting the medical care of Doctor Todt, I hereby declare that I will never sue for malpractice or I will be liable to pay the good Doctor 100 Fastastillion Dollars compensation.
Patient signs here.
Your point about game reviews was so interesting that I will do the same next time I'm interested in a game but I disagree about the reasoning working in this case.
First of all, the fact that patient doctor confidentiality exists, should make doctors feel uncomfortable asking people to post anything about their experience. At least I would, if I were a doctor and as a patient, I would never visit a doctor that asks me to post a review. Medical issues are such an important privacy matter for many (but perhaps not you).
Second, few people possess the expertise needed to assess medical treatment whilst anybody that can play a game can review it.
Any time someone gets one of these, report the doctor or dentist to their appropriate professional organizations, and claim that you felt coerced to sign this in order to get care. If enough of these are sent, this practice will stop. That, and post a review of that practice to Yelp and give them the requisite goose egg rating.
Also, doctors and dentists are asking patients to sign binding arbitration agreements. Be VERY wary about this, as functionally it is much worse than limiting public commentary.
my wife is going to one of those
[insert obvious troll here]
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
No he will file a DMCA take down, you will have the option of going to court or objecting and letting him sue you. Either way you had better have enough cash for a lawyer. How much is your speech worth to you? It will cost thousands most likely.
Doctor-patient confidentiality wouldn't prevent a doctor from taking action against libelous reviews - which are really the only kinds of negative reviews they should be concerned about. As said above, no one is likely to have a 100% approval rating, and the negative reviews are often more informative than the positive reviews - and non-credible negative reviews are generally easier to recognize. If the reviews are demonstrably false and can cause harm to the doctor or his/her practice, then let it go to the courts. Otherwise, there's no need to even think about trying to regulate comments/reviews.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Because of EMTALA, a terrible law that has allowed people to use ERs as their primary care. It's federal extortion, not state contract law (i.e., duress).
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There probably was an arbitration agreement slipped in there, if your bleeding too badly the nurse will sign it for you or show you where to make an "X".
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You mean like a consent for treatment form?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Doctors should be worried, because yelp can be gamed, and they'll let the gaming happen if it's in their best interest... An anecdotal story.
I've work in a karaoke bar the last 10 years. This is before American Idol made it go crazy popular. FF>> to a few years ago...
There was a local karaoke company (this is multiple individuals, not one guy in a bar like me) who were tired of all the good press, yelp reviews, and awards our place has gotten over the years. They'd play favourites with karaoke singers to gain favour with them, then have them write negative reviews about our place (without even having set foot ONCE in there)
Around the same time yelp starts calling, "We can sort those bad reviews to the bottom of the list for $400@mo" I'd be on the phone with these jackasses for hours, saying these reviews were bogus, and how dare you try and extort money from us...
Few days later, bad review start floating to the top. The little "soundbites" (don't know what else to call them, the little highlighted bits of reviews at the top) started being nothing but negative.
I got tired of it. Being the old school dickhead BOFH that I am, I started dropping dox weekly on our website of yelp employees one by one(upper level management mostly, was leading up to stoppleman). Sure, I'd get threats, but I'd just give them the same bullshit answer they gave me, "Hey, it's publicly available info man, just like you guys told me!"
One day the owner's son (of where I work) came down to talk to me. He said, "Dude, I know these guys, they got a lawyer full time on staff, they just gotta drop this off on their desk and say "attack". Please, take down the docs.
So I did. And magically these dickheads reviews got sorted, or deleted.
Moral of the story is, yelp is fucking corrupt. If your competitor wants to slander you on yelp, you have 0 recourse without full legal action. Fuck you yelp, go suck a dick. (and yes I probably typed something similar before)
Have these dentists never heard of the Streisand Effect?
My guess would be that they (along with most of the population) have not heard of the Streisand Effect. In fact the only place I see the Streisand Effect routinely mentioned is here on slashdot. That said, chances are they'll become all too familiar with the effects of it even if they haven't heard the term.
Just sign the contract as Bugs Bunny. Odds are, if your signature is bad enough, no one will notice.
That said, any doctor that is this afraid of bad reviews is a doctor you should be afraid of. I prefer the ones that offer a survey on my way out and let me know some of the common sites that they need more reviews. If you've looked for a doctor on the internet long enough, you find that they all have bad reviews, but not a lot have good reviews, especially ones that look like they were written by an actual person.
I know GNOME's Help Browser is extremey painful, but I didn't think it was malpractice.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
I had one of these go bad on me once.. cost me $1500 to make go away..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
Specifically..
"Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage."
IANAL, But I did have to pay one for this...
BTW.. it is my understanding that the incident or event, good, bad, or indifferent, is irrelevant. It is that you interfered at all with their business relationship. Again.. IANAL.
You would have to go to court and spend thousands of dollars you may not have to fight such a thing.
One or two people might and then our elected officials would bring the wrath of $deity down on any hospital or physician that attempted to silence a patient like that. Personally I would hope someone would try with me. My lawyer and I could buy matching islands with the proceeds from the lawsuit that would follow such a foolish act.
You don't have to sign anything to be treated if the facility accepts Medicare or Medicaid. Generally if you have to sign anything it is an authorization to use your personal information to bill you or your insurance company and not an agreement to pay.
They fought having meaningful rankings made public. They fought having outcomes measured.
There are lots of measurements out there but you can be quite certain many if not most of them aren't very meaningful. Let's say two doctors have their mortality rates measured. One has 99% of their patients come out alive and the other has just 95%. Who is the better doctor? There is no way you can tell from that measure alone. It could be that the doctor with the worse mortality rate takes on significantly more challenging patients. Maybe one has to work with a more difficult patient population who can't afford the same level of care. Medicine is VERY complicated and it is difficult if not impossible to concisely measure the performance of a physician.
If someone wanted to measure my performance on the job with a few measures that don't tell the whole story and then advertise my performance to the world, I'd be less than pleased about that as well. Doctors are entitled to fight for reasonable performance measurements the same as you or I.
I'm a doctor. Most of my patients are pretty nice. A few are really nice and a few are really mean. There are some people you will never please, no matter what you do. There are some people who request outlandish things, like narcotics that they don't need, or disability papers they don't deserve. I rarely tell a patient "no," but whenever I do, I've created hostility and negative energy. Some of this can spill over onto the web and affect my reputation.
It was bad enough that disgruntled patients can yell at me, sue me for malpractice, or switch doctors, but add to that the additional capability to write a bad review, and it just makes being a doctor that much less appealing.
I agree that making the patient sign a waiver to post comments on the web is counterproductive. I don't do it. But what should a doctor, one who cares both for his patients and for his hard-earned reputation, do to protect himself from destructive online speech?
Unfortunately, the Drs. have no avenue to correct a false or defamatory posting online because there is a federal statute that gives a website certain immunities if they don't exercise editorial control over the content. But, if the Drs. own the review site postings, they would have to right to request them to take it down or else they could sue the website directly. The statutes is something like 230 of the 1996 Telecom Act.
So, you get review sites that don't edit user content unless a court orders them to do so. Or you get review sites that extort the Drs. into paying a few thousand dollars a pop to remove the 'content.' (Not naming names... purely opinion and speculation on my part).
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer. BUT, I'm not your lawyer. Anyone who would rely on an internet posting as legal advice should be slapped silly.
By a recent study, so is brisk walking, but combining the two can be a trifle awkward.
Who is John Cabal?
While I agree in principal, I disagree in practice.
Principle. Next you will tell us Washington is the Capitol.
Revealing the prices they actually charge will be the next hurdle.
It would be illegal for the emergency room to do that, not to mention unethical. They also don't care if they lose your business, an ER is not exactly going to be hurting for customers. If they did do such a thing you could probably find a public prosecutor who would take that up.
If not, a crusading lawyer may well have already prepared for this battle and be looking for a test case so they can either make their money or make a political point.
Justice is not free, but there are angles where you can get someone else to pay for it, especially if it makes for easy return on investment or good press.
Or EULA tied to the elevator button. As long as nobody takes the stairs...
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Spot on. I wish I had mod points for you.
Many contractors over-promise in order get a competitive advantage just to get the contract. I've seen the same type of behavior with contractors who under-bid, just to get the contract, then pile on big charges for any and all change requests. Even changes that should be cost neutral.
Any contractor who claims that a delay is because "we have more than one customer" deserves a bad review. It means that they over-promised multiple customers and they sent your job to the bottom of their priority list.
Give honest time and cost estimates and customers will give good reviews.
Bingo! The only problem I personally see with places like Yelp is that they are rigged to side with trolls because they make their money by going "Psst! want to make these bad reviews go away? Give us $$$ and we'll make them disappear!" now THAT should be called what it is, blackmail pure and simple.
Otherwise as long as the doc is allowed to respond they shouldn't EVER have the right to take free speech (and has anyone seen if these are legal?) from anyone. I run a little shop and can count the number of PO'ed customers on a single hand. if they wrote a bad review i'd be happy to point out they simply had unbelievable expectations (One guy wanted his PC fixed for $20, trying to haggle like it was a fricking auction, another kept disabling his AV when it wouldn't let him install "Iz_Not_ViruZ_Iz_Pron_Codec.exe" and then expected me to clean his mess for free) and let people decide.
In ANY business you are gonna have some pissed off customers, I don't care how good of a job you do. some people think the world revolves around them and they can do anything they want, like spill a Coke down a PC and expect to return it, others think a single payment gets them repairs for life. but for every moron like that a GOOD business will have easily 1000 customers that have nothing but good things to say, and if a site isn't rigged like Yelp is then the good should outweigh the bad by huge amounts. Trying to get rid of free speech isn't the answer, having professional slander sites like Yelp shut down should be.
One last thing about docs: there should be an IRONCLAD contract that states 'here are what the side effects of this drug is, by agreeing to it you agree NEVER to sue if you have these side effects after being told" because I spent 5 years in a living hell because the miracle drug that would help me was taken off the market thanks to lawsuit whores. For ANYONE that took this drug you had to not only have a 30 minute explanation of the side effects as well as agree to not have ANY kids for AT LEAST 10 years, but actually had to watch a film as well telling you this, and sign saying you had watched it. so what happened? A couple of bitches (may they fucking rot) took the drug then promptly went out and got knocked up having horribly fucked up kids in the process. They sued and got an assload of money, which caused the drug to get yanked off the market.
NEWS FLASH: ALL DRUGS HAVE SIDE EFFECTS and if we are not gonna be able to have a medication because some asshole fucks himself up on it by not following the rules and sues? Well then there are gonna be a lot of suffering people needlessly. I should be able to sign a contract with my doc and get ANY drug he thinks would help me, period the end. Medications should be decided by the doc, not a lawsuit whore. Hell it is no wonder docs are so damned panicked right now, a doc can give someone a bottle of medication and if they crush it and shove it up their ass frying their brain they'll find some asshole ambulance chaser that will sue for a billion dollars over it!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I work in the service industry. We had a customer once who had some unreasonable request (bordering on insurance fraud). When we turned her away she went to the web and posted some pretty terrible (and untrue) things about my company. As the subject of the review, there is little we can do about it other than engaging in an internet flame war with this person. That would make us look even worse. There are 2 sides to every story and sometimes sites like yelp get abused. Too often, happy customers don't bother to submit but people who feel wronged tell a thousand people.
He may be an idiot, but chiropractors can certainly be the real deal.
Myself, I had tones of problems. One of my legs was starting to go numb now and then. I realized (while picking an ingrown hair of all thigns) that I could jab one leg and it would hurt a lot less than on the other.
That's a scary realization.
About 4 visits with him and the majority of the issues were nearly gone. 10 later and there is absolutely nothing wrong now. I can look up without feeling some pain. My legs feel normal. I don't get back spasms in the middle of the day any more. I get much fewer headaches as well.
And the interesting bit? Nothing else changed, only my going to see a chiropractor (who actually does real things). This all said he wasn't the kind you think of that just lay you down and start cracking things - X-rays were taken, and when some issues were apparent the next step was a fluoroscope to see how things were in motion. Even I could see several spots where vertebrae just didn't flex (almost like they were fixed together). My neck was also straight - rather than the gentle bow that is supposed to be present.
The adjustment tool of choice was this weird little two-hammer type thing. I watched the computer as he probed my back (pushed down on the bone until the device "snapped", and it measured how much force it took to cause movement and how much movement was registered when it happened. After probing, he made a few adjustments on the machine, changed it's mode, and it worked similar to a jackhammer. While doing so, it again measured, and when done it showed a before/after and an "optimal" response curve. Wish I knew what it was called.
Neat stuff.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I don't see this as anything of a surprise. Few dentists became dentists in a world of consumer reviews running rampant. And in a world where anyone can say anything about anybody, if I were in a profession where I frequently exerted pain over my consumer clientele, and that's the point, I wouldn't want to have to deal with anyone publicising the correct course of action as incorrect. It isn't always so.
But more importantly, remember freedom? You don't have any right to dentistry. The dentist has the right to refuse to serve you. That's the freedom, that's the right being discussed here.
And if a legitimate business person, dentist or otherwise, doesn't want to service bloggers, that's perfectly fine. That's his or her right, actually. A dentist can choose to not serve other dentists, politicians, celebrities, or in this case journalists / the media.
So you deal with this the same way you deal with everything. You refuse to be serviced by someone with a principle that you don't support. So you don't have to go to this dentist -- even if you aren't a blogger. You can refuse on principle, adn you can find another dentist.
And many things will happen.
These dentists who have enough business will be happy with their non-blogger clientele.
These dentists who don't have enough business will change or go out of business.
Other dentists without a lot of business will get more business.
Other dentists with a lot of business will charge more.
That's the way it works. Why are you complaining? You want every dentist to be forced to take your business? And you call that freedom? Yours, not theirs buddy.
The kind of publication being discussed here constitutes an added risk for these dentists. Added risks mean mitigating those risks, either by reducing the foot-print or by charging more to cover those risks or to avoid those risks.
So what's the problem?
That's odd.
I've never seen a massues take a motion X-ray, watch bits of my spine misbehave, measure the angle of curvature in various parts, plug it into a computer, and fix the fucking problem.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This all said he wasn't the kind you think of that just lay you down and start cracking things - X-rays were taken, and when some issues were apparent the next step was a fluoroscope to see how things were in motion.
Isn't that massive radiation?
People worry about Fukushima, but a fluoroscope is a lot more.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
You don't lie much do you? All you have to say is, "Yes I signed numerous forms, as you can see by my signature. However I did NOT sign this non-disclosure form, which is why my signature is not present. I suspect that 'scribble' was done by the nurse or maybe the doctor. i.e. a Forgery."
"But you don't know if it was a forgery."
"True. All I can say is that I did NOT sign this paper. That is NOT my signature."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Wrong. You can file a DMCA counter-notice. After which, the doctor is the one who has to either drop it or sue.
And there have been several cases in recent years where medicines pulled by the FDA were never covered because they didn't have sufficient kickbacks from their manufacturers.
Fixed that for you.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
You might be able to charge (and sue) the dentist for your time. You booked the appointment, took time off of work traveled to the dentist (if (s)he's not nearby), and the -- all of a sudden -- you're told "Sign away your free speech rights, or all of this preparation is for naught!" It's a complete hardball tactic. It's designed to pressure you into signing something you'd probably have walked away from if you knew before you made the appointment.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
While I agree in principal, I disagree in practice. Your argument is that if the dentist or doctor does a good job, then he/she will not have any complaints. I think most would accept though that there are some people that will never be satisfied. Also, doctors, and dentists, like people, can make mistakes and have bad days sometimes.
Absolutely agree that some people are never happy and that some people feel aggrieved when the worst of several outcomes is the end result. However, I look at it this way. A competent practice will have an overwhelmingly positive review with a few genuine complaints. Intelligent people understand that there is no such thing as perfect, that complaints are more visible than satisfied customers, and can usually judge when a complaint is an irrational rant or suspiciously like three hundred other "reviews". The sort of people that expect perfection or believe every negative thing written about a practice are precisely the sort of people I wouldn't want as patients. I say, let them rant and go elsewhere.
Retaliation, I feel, would only aggravate the complainant and provide ammunition of the "They're heartless bastards for attacking" variety. Medical care is an area rife with irrational emotion that you cannot fight with reason.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
A while back I was looking at reviews for a mechanic. There was one very highly rated, with uniformly positive reviews... all non-specifically praised him, were written in similar styles, and there tended to be 2-3 reviews on the same day followed by weeks of inactivity...
Needless to say, my BS-meter caused me to take my business elsewhere. As online reviews become increasingly important, a white-washed list of reviews is more likely to deter business than anything. Scams are a part of everyday life, so the people with money to spend tend not to fall for them.
If the Patient was a professional writer and the Dentist was scoring some free work product then maybe tell the Dentist to find himself another writer too. Just for fun, tell the Dentist to tell his Lawyer the RIAA expected all of them in Court tomorrow.
No, fluoroscopes are run at a fraction of the power level as regular X-Rays. It's actually fairly hard to see, mostly white cloud with a bit more opaque areas where bones are. I was also in a position to see the control panel as well, and I did see it was cranked way down (near the lowest possible setting actually). Typical exposures are apparently between 20–50 mGy/min, keeping in mind that "The average radiation dose from an abdominal X-ray is 1.4 mGy, that from an abdominal CT scan is 8.0 mGy, that from a pelvic CT scan is 25 mGy, and that from a selective CT scan of the abdomen and the pelvis is 30 mGy." (from wiki, yes. at least it's cited from a real source!)
Keeping in mind as well you're exposed to around 8 times the radiation of a dental X-Ray just flying from New York to LA, which is something that I've done too often to count.
All in all, my own mental risk analysis came out on the side of getting it done.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Oh. One other thing.
The extra radiation exposure in Tokyo over -weeks- after Fukushima was only just over twice that of a chest X-Ray. If this helps put things to scale.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
...have a family member interview you and post the review. They didn't sign anything. The copyright is theirs. They are simply reporting what you said.
Of course it's always a bad idea. If you make a name for yourself as someone who complains about doctors, no doctor will treat you unless they are absolutely legally required to do so.
The medical profession is just SHIT. They hold all the knowledge, equipment, and legally required credentials but treatment is unscientific because the systems favours bad self interested doctors. The standard of care is terrible. Really the only way to be safe is to never be sick, but that's not under your control. Medical associations are run like a union based of the collective interests of the doctors and ignoring the patients interests. Then they whine and moan when people self-diagnose.
One of the worst things is that they restrict their numbers to achieve artificial scarcity, guaranteeing high rates. They do this under the guise of only accrediting after a very thorough process but in reality its' all about the money. They're even willing to do ridiculous hours to achieve this scarcity. If you drove a truck for 16 hours straight you'd be thrown in prison, but a doctor or nurse doing those hours is par for the course.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Meh. Just tatoo a countermanding eula on the inside of your cheek. Since yours would be the most recently "agreed to" eula, presumably it should trump any earlier ones.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"The Internet is the great equalizer." Schultz told Ars. This is the single most insightful sentence from TFA and most comments, and restates the #1 most general law of entropy degradation in the internet age.
You'd think that the same scam approach could apply to any other product. However, did any appliance manufacturer require you to sign any similar form after buying their TV, their fridge or their computer? No, because these giants know about it and they just don't care. Have you ever spent weeks or months researching and reading reviews before making up your mind which computer monitor to buy? Well, I have. Big companies don't care what reviews say, because for every knowledgeable client that says "this is crap" there will be another one saying "it's dirt cheap and good enough for the job".
Doctors and other private entrepreneurs however, pressured by the fact that they'll have only tens or a few hundred of steady clientele, are easily illusioned they can avoid the low tail of the review spectrum. In fact, they can't: As the number of reviews grows, for every outlier bad review there will be equally outlier raving reviews, the result being a gaussian distribution of ratings. It's called the law of large numbers. Good doctors are going to have negative reviews and not-so-good doctors are going to have reviewers paid to get their ratings up. Both will result in three and a half stars, the end of publicly available quality assessments (and the end of reviewing sites). Doctors and dentists should better take a pragmatic approach and accept the age-old facts of life: haters will hate, fans will fanboi, but a customer's person-to-person recommendation is worth more than ten thousand Facebook followers or one million tweets.
However, I can easily imagine a not-so-remote future where purchasing anything would require you to sign some kind of agreement to "do no evil" (TM). With societies as large as 300+ million (e.g. the US), laws cannot be expected to be enforced effectively, therefore the trend is to have everybody sign some kind of private contract that might eventually (together with some lobbying) become more binding than existing laws. It's cheap, it's effective copyright theater, and at present seems lawful.
The overarching theme is "any purchase must become a legal agreement". We can see signs of it already: your Apple mobile phone contract or tablet EULA may already have such clauses (thou shalt not jailbreak). Signing for a free email account may have such clauses (thou shalt not post abusive stuff). Using cloud services may have such clauses. Even buying a book or a music album might involve, in addition to DRM, a contract with similar restrictions (thou shalt not pirate). Etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Because the Internet is the great equalizer and your money is ours, so is your opinion and your existence in general.
Obligatory reference to Procol Harum's song "As strong as Samson" (Exotic Birds & Fruit, 1974)
Psychiatrists and lawyers...destroying mankind
Drivin' 'em crazy...and stealing 'em blind
Bankers and brokers...ruling the world
Storing the silver...and hoarding the gold
Ain't no use in preachers preaching
When they don't know what they're preaching
Weakest man, be strong as Samson
When you're being held to ransom
If the review is from a real patient, they signed over copyright and the doctor can ask for the review to be removed.
If they didn't sign over copyright, then they must not be a patient, so the review is fraudulent, doctor can ask for the review to be removed.
It doesn't have to be binding to non-patients in order to work.
Doctors on average lose about 10% of the money they COLLECT to pay for malpractice. That can range anywhere from $20,000 up to $200,000 per year .
Most doctors also work about 70 hours a week too, So if they cut their hours back to what a regular person works, then the cost would be about 20% of their patients bill.
Your statement logically makes no sense, comparing apple to oranges, or doctors costs to all spending. You mistakenly assume that total spending all goes back to the MD. There are many other costs included in spending, such as paying for the nurse, lab fees, hospital fees, medicine, therapy - most of which does NOT go to the doctor.
Defensive medicine - approximately 35% of all x-rays are ordered for defensive purposes.
http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/02/25/penna-study-35-of-all-health-imaging-costs-are-driven-by-malpractice-litigation/
I don't think you know what you're talking about, or have logically made a grievous mistake.
..........FULL STOP.
That was a typo. It should read "a brisk wanking."
The doctor should pay for your rights to comment.
The same as the cost of treatment should be right.
So, either
a) dentist does all their work for free, but never gets a bad word said about him on the internet
or
b) dentist gets paid but a fully informed public gets to possibly hear about his ability
Back in your Freedom Pen!!
The need to silence critics is a bad sign, I'd have left too.
Do you understand that a doctor could not sue a patient for libel relating to the treatment without breaking confidentiality?
What's even more interesting, is that I actively seek out the bad reviews. When it comes to game reviews, for example, I go to the compilation sites like gamerankings etc, and purposely read the reviews that rated the game the worst. You can tell a lot about a game by the way the critical reviewers tear it apart.
I do the same thing when choosing books on Amazon. The bad reviews are often quit helpful, and I have no problems filtering out the ones that are either irrelevant to me, or complete raving bullshit.
...but it's your job to make sure the work will be covered before submitting to it!
Well, that's never been a problem for me, because my dental insurance is so bad that it never covers anything my dentist does. (Was so bad actually, I finally dropped that junk.)
The last time I bought a used car, the salesman made it very clear he wanted me to tell everyone I know how I felt about the service. If a doctor or dentist doesn't want you to talk about something publicly, run away. How do the licensing boards feel about these contracts?
At which point he will sue, he makes 6+ figures. So fine, he sues you. Now you have to pay thousands to speak about what the ER doc did to you.