Dutch Surgeon Wins Landmark 'Right To Be Forgotten' Case (theguardian.com)

AmiMoJo shares a report from The Guardian: A Dutch surgeon formally disciplined for her medical negligence has won a legal action to remove Google search results about her case in a landmark "right to be forgotten" ruling. The doctor's registration on the register of healthcare professionals was initially suspended by a disciplinary panel because of her postoperative care of a patient. After an appeal, this was changed to a conditional suspension under which she was allowed to continue to practice. But the first results after entering the doctor's name in Google continued to be links to a website containing an unofficial blacklist, which it was claimed amounted to "digital pillory." It was heard that potential patients had found the blacklist on Google and discussed the case on a web forum. The surgeon's lawyer, Willem van Lynden, said the ruling was groundbreaking in ensuring doctors would no longer be judged by Google on their fitness to practice. "Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.

Comments

Good example of what is wrong

[JoshuaZ]

This is a really good example of why the "right to be forgotten" idea is a really bad idea. Aside from issues of free speech, in any reasonable context, patients should have a right to know what problems or potential issues a doctor they have has had. One doesn't even need an American style strong free speech norm to see that this should be unacceptable.

Re:Good example of what is wrong

[Mal-2]

At the same time, people who have been accused of one thing and subsequently "convicted" on a lesser count (or nothing at all) deserve to have the original charge properly tagged with the resolution of the case. A mere retraction after the fact is insufficient. It needs to be in plain view from the moment the original complaint is referenced.

Re:Good example of what is wrong

[93 Escort Wagon]

Apparently the tribunal didn't agree. "The right to privacy is more important than for the public to find information on the judgment of a medical board"

Speaking as an American - I'd love to see a poll showing where European citizens fall on that question. I have a hard time believing they'd agree with the tribunal; but perhaps I just don't understand the average European.

Re:Good example of what is wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

At the same time, people who have been accused of one thing and subsequently "convicted" on a lesser count (or nothing at all) deserve to have the original charge properly tagged with the resolution of the case.

Why should that be the responsibility of a search engine?

Re: Good example of what is wrong

[Virtual_Raider]

The problem with your reasoning is that it effectively removes any possibility of the wrongdoer learning from the experience and moving on with their life. What good is the sanction if it never ends? For all we know, she did fuck up but also she did learn her lesson and is now a wonderful surgeon. Yes, it _may_ not be the case, but a search engine isn't the proper place to keep track of these things.

Re:Good example of what is wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Why should that be the responsibility of a search engine?

Because the search engine is acting as an agent providing information about people, which is regulated by data protection laws.

This problem was actually recognized back in the 80s when such laws first appeared. Databases often contained errors and people tended to trust the computer far too much, so the right to have corrections made was introduced and limits placed on the use of such data.

Imagine if a credit reference agency had a massive black mark on your file that was a mistake. You would want it corrected, right?

Re:Good example of what is wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Europe has a different concept of freedom to the US.

The US is very much focused on freedom from interference. The government can't stop you doing things. In Europe we have that too, but we also consider to right to certain things to be essential to be free as well. For example, someone without any education has effectively had their freedom severely limited because it's difficult for them to function and find happiness in the modern world, so education is a human right here and the government has a responsibility to provide it. More than that, the government must protect that right and can't allow parents to withhold education from their children.

The quote you used is also somewhat incomplete. What the tribunal means is an old, out of date judgement that has been superseded. The medical board did in fact allow her to continue practising, but the site saying she was banned was not updated.

So the balance here is between her freedom to pursue a career and earn a living as a doctor, vs. the public's right to find this old and misleading information. Of course links to the current judgement, and indeed to news articles about this case are all fine, because they make the current situation clear. The public will know that she made mistakes and is under supervision now.

"Forgotten" is a bit of a misnomer here.

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

This is an exercise of the right to correct information, not of "the right to be forgotten". The claims are against websites that publish the incorrect information about the disciplinary action that is no longer valid. It is the same as a sentence which has been revoked is removed from your criminal record.

Great work!

[robbak]

Now we hope this information gets more widely spread.

Re:Great work!

[thegarbz]

Why? You feel like fucking up someone's life over 3rd party opinion?

Hey everyone robbak one blew off a horse, we need to spread this widely. The fact that it's not real shouldn't stop us from spreading this news! The fact that the formal department of management of horse erectile function declares that he hasn't blown off a horse shouldn't stop us from spreading this news!

That's what you're saying right?

Re:Yelp

[xski]

I don't see where he repudiated medical science, only the practitioners and how they're administered.

Nuance, FTW.

Re:Yelp

[thegarbz]

So Yelp is allowed to keep going but medical professionals who impact lives instead of serving food are allowed to "be forgotten?"

Why does this not make perfect sense to you? A few iditos rambling about shity service on a review page vs a result that incorrectly says someone is unfit for practice while actually being deemed fit by the medical review board; it makes perfect sense to correct the latter problem.

This is not surprising give the Dutch approach to problems. Do the crime, do the punishment, and unlike the American way where your life is screwed as a result after the punishment has been dealt many European countries consider you perfectly good to re-integrate into society.

Re:Technology is hard.

[thegarbz]

It sounds like Van Lynden doesn't know how the internet works. Google can't "take down" anything.

Actually it sounds like you don't know how the internet works. The theory and the practice are two different things. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't mean it won't fade into irrelevance when becoming delisted. The exception are items of continued interest and controversy. E.g. Delist The Pirate Bay from Google and after a few good years it would drop off the face of the earth, however if you keep talking about it in the media, then it would survive.

Mind you continuing to talk about something in the media also makes it an item of public interest and thus wouldn't fall under the right to be forgotten. That last word is key: "forgotten" not removed, not blacklisted, just "forgotten".

Re:Technology is hard.

[thegarbz]

Even if Google complies, it is doubtful that DDG or any of the other search engines will do so.

The world's second most popular search engine is Bing. It has a 4% market share ... on a work day where people don't change defaults on their work computers.

If Google removes something, there's a good chance of a population forgetting it existed.

and you are part of makign society worst

[aepervius]

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Look , TL;DR : you are basically a proponent of marking any people having been caught adulterous with a red brand on their forehead. This is exactly what you want. Before google and other search engine we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten, in other word a right to be able to correct errors, and become better. If you brand people forever , you effectively destroy their life. Maybe you are an american ? That would explain it, US society seem good on punitive action but not so much on rehabilitation, or prevention.

Defending nazis

[sjbe]

The fact that you agree that Scott Adams should be labeled a nazi, is symptomatic of this very problem.

At no point did I say he should be labeled a nazi. I said that he shouldn't be surprised that he was labeled one. If you defend Nazis anywhere beyond defending their constitutional right to free speech you should darn well expect to be considered to be one. Might not be fair but it's reality. Adams tried to defend WHAT they said when he should have stopped at defending their right to say it.

You completely diminish the true nature of how bad they were by throwing this label around over your political opposites.

If you fail to condemn Nazis and white supremacists then you de-facto are condoning them. There is no middle ground here and you are picking a side either way. Siding with Nazis isn't far removed from being one. Most conservatives/republicans clearly are NOT white supremacists but there are far too many who are. They are not "fine people" and trying to spin or nuance such statements is to support them. To defend the protesters beyond their constitutional rights is to side with them. Even the ACLU would (and has) defended their free speech rights but defending what they say is much different than defending their right to say it. Adams (and Trump) failed to recognize this difference.

Re: Yelp

[AlwinBarni]

With one swipe you threw into trash many hard working and devoted professionals and years of research, studies and trials.

There are doctors and there are doctors - like in any other profession involving humans, despite of drawbacks, problems and botched surgeries there are much more cases of saved lives and utter devotion to helping people, and since you heard about the bad cases it means that check and balances work (not perfectly, but still).

Progress in medicine is outstanding, true, not all conditions are well understood, but more and more are, there are plenty of truly saving lives discoveries - let's be honest here - how many scientific articles have you read last week devoted to medicine? My guess is none, I guess you have not even read about the last year Nobel, where a revolutionary treatment for deadly skin cancer was awarded "for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation".

There are plenty of just recently discovered life savings treatments, HIV is not a death sentence anymore, cancer on many occasions is treatable (e.g. CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy), transplant surgeries save lives, artificial parts (including heart) save lives, universal vaccines for whole groups of viruses are on the horizon.

Lastly, it's the XXI century, we have Internet and Google, all what's needed is a willingness to read to have an informed opinion vs just an opinion.

Re: How?

[SvnLyrBrto]

As the saying goes: "He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas"

There's an easy way to not be mistaken for a Nazi: Don't do Nazi-like things. And don't stand with those who do. If you're of the opinion that Nazis are "very fine people", then you're doing the latter.

Re:How?

[dcw3]

If you read the article you linked to, it points out that Adams correctly states that Trump wasn't referring to the supremacists, but to people who were pro and anti statue. So, you're doing exactly what Adams points out...taking it out of context.

“I mean, my favorite example is Charlottesville,” Adams said. “When there was a protest about pro- and anti-statues and the president said that there were fine people on both sides, that was reported as he says there were fine people in the racist group, you know, the white supremacists.” “That wasn’t really the context. The context was pro-statue, anti-statue,” Adams continued.