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

[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?

"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.