Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints 462

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the where-is-my-internet-malpractice-insurance dept.
Carl Bialik writes "'Several Web sites have sprung up that encourage patients to post anonymous reviews of doctors and dentists. Some frustrated patients have even created entire Web sites to criticize specific physicians. The Wall Street Journal Online is reporting that some doctors are, in turn, defending their reputation by suing the online critics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints More

Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints

Comments Filter:

  • Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:03PM (#13559050) Homepage Journal
    Awww, they should toughen up. Spending time posting on Slashdot should help out with that as no interesting or informative post here goes without some sort of pain.

    Seriously though, if the patients are reporting on their experience, then that is not slander. Just stick to the facts and they should be fine. However, when you start crossing the line into statements that cannot be substantiated, then that is dangerous water. It is of course important to have resources like Slashdot where comments past a certain date cannot be modified. They become a part of the historical record that documents both protection for and against issues of speech.

    • Re:Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Funny)

      by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:10PM (#13559108) Homepage
      Verified? Its the internet. Reminds me of a quote from The Simpsons:

      Lisa:Dad, you can't post that on the internet, you don't even know if its true!
      • The ironic part is, that's not even a real quote.

        No, really.

        Trust me, I'm a poster on Slashdot.
        • A search of snpp.com [google.com] says it is a real quote.

          Homer: That lousy pothole. Why don't they fix it?
          Bart: [walks in with a cookie and a glass of milk] I heard Mayor Quimby spent the street repair fund on a secret swimming pool for himself.
          Homer: Get out. Who told you that?
          Bart: Nelson.
          Homer: Hmmm. That's the kind of dirt that belongs on my web page.
          Lisa: You can't post that on the Internet. You don't even know if it's true!
          Homer: Nelson has never steered me wrong, honey. Nelson is gold.
          B

    • Re:Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:18PM (#13559190) Homepage
      The main problem is that the sites had names like drsmithfraud.com not medicalreviews.com. If someone has a site with a name like that it is probably not a dis-interested review, it is more like publishing a hit piece on the subject.

      On the other hand the doctors involved are interestingly similar. They are all promoting elective surgery for cosmetic or quality of life reasons, one at least is a heavily advertised brand that does frequent infomercials. These are not your usual doctors.

      Folk who bring libel suits often have something to hide. Robert Maxwell successfully supressed criticism of his theft-in-progress of the Mirror group pension fund using libel writs. Only after he committed suicide did the massive fraud come out. Jeffry Archer got away with millions until he was found out and jailed for perjury. The US libel laws are not quite as idiotic but a successful defendant can't get costs of the plaintif and so the SLAPP potential of libel suits is much higher.

      • Re:Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Informative)

        by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:29PM (#13559299) Journal
        The domain name is usually considered protected speech so long as the content is not actionable (slander/libel, (C) infringement, TM infringement, etc.)

        For example: http://farmersreallysucks.com/ [farmersreallysucks.com] is a website about my experience with Farmers Insurance. All I say is either factual, or commentary. In the case of factual information, it is not actionable, in the case of commentary, that too is protected speech, even if inflammitory, so long as it is not represented as fact.

        I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals.

        What I can not do is: Farmers, an insurance company, is comprised of asshats that eat children.

        The former was a statement of opinion, the latter of fact (and not accurate, making it libel).

        Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html [farmersreallysucks.com] and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.
        Cheers,
        -nB
        • What would be funny is a satire of asshat Farmers eating children.

          That aside, there is some belief that we should go beyond the law and keep statements honest and constructive. I'm not saying that it's fair, there will always be people who go to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the law), and a corporation with a hoarde of lawyers will figure out how to push it to the limit. However, the good guys should be better than the bad guys, in every way.

          Calling them a bunch of scum sucking assholes is not helpful
        • How ironic that without their takedown notice, I never would've seen your site. There's some pretty obvious legal karma in there. :)

      • anti-SLAPP (Score:5, Informative)

        by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:32PM (#13559326) Homepage
        In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.

        The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information [casp.net] go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./ [www.barbieslapp.com]
        SLAPP [barbieslapp.com] stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.

    • Re:Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoralHazard ( 447833 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:19PM (#13559204)
      Seriously though, if the patients are reporting on their experience, then that is not slander. Just stick to the facts and they should be fine.

      There are two kinds of factual statemnts:
              1) true statements, and;
              2) false statements.
      Unless the statement is inherently contradictory, there's no way to know whether a factual statement is true just by looking at it, on (for instance) a website devoted to doctor's reviews of patients.

      You can't have meaningful, productive free speech with perfect anonymity, because there's no accountibility possible in that scenario. People must be ultimately accountible for their statements, if those statements are aired in public. Even though it rarely comes up on the Internet (most of what we say is nonsense, wnayway), an aggrieved party still needs to have the ability to unmask you in order to sue you for libel. If the big, bad mean doctors are protected, so are the rest of us good folks.

      • Re:Just the facts, maam (Score:5, Informative)

        by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:28PM (#13559287) Journal
        There are two kinds of factual statemnts:
        1) true statements, and;
        2) false statements.

        Here is an example of a statement which is not factual because a fact is, by definition, true.

    • ...if the patients are reporting on their experience, then that is not slander...

      ...or libel.

      But somewhere it should be noted that even a single negative remark about a physican has an irrationally large effect on most of us... often concluding with, "Why take the chance?".

      Certainly, free speech comes first... but it would be nice to see some of the BitchHere.com sites provide some statistical guidelines about the inevitable occurrence of irascible loonies.

    • I am a CS-major-turned-medical student, so let me put in my opinions on this matter.

      The business of medicine is quite unlike other businesses. A good doctor cannot turn away a patient that she is capable of treating, but a good lawyer/restaurant owner/shop owner is free to discriminate which customers he accepts. I understand that medical insurance being what it is, certain physicians will turn away "less-desirable" patients. Doctors need to make money too, and I can imagine how frustrating it might
      • This is for the most part, completely and utterly false.

        Hospitals can't turn away those in dire need of medical attention.

        EVERYONE else can pick and choose who they treat. They can choose not to treat you if they think they will do more harm than good. They can choose not to treat you if you don't follow their advice.

  • Dr. Kevorkian (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpaceAdmiral ( 869318 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:08PM (#13559084) Homepage
    That reminds me. . . I'm not entirely satisfied with my family physician.

  • First Amendment versus Sanctioned Legal Monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:08PM (#13559086) Homepage Journal
    Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers [lewrockwell.com], have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality [lewrockwell.com], and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago [lewrockwell.com].

    It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power [lewrockwell.com] to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

    I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

    I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

    I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare [lewrockwell.com] if you really want to see things get worse.

    The American Dental Associations [lewrockwell.com] is no better [lewrockwell.com].

    First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

    • Re:First Amendment versus Sanctioned Legal Monopol (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zigg ( 64962 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:22PM (#13559230)

      So let me get this (lewrockwell.com) straight. What you're saying (lewrockwell.com) is that (lewrockwell.com) doctors (lewrockwell.com) are pure evil (lewrockwell.com)?

      • Yeah, I was going to make note that I was linking to a site that contains many different authors, editors, and third party articles all on their site. Forgot to mention it.

        LRC definitely has a political bend to it. So do doctors suing their patients for expressing their right to speak freely.

    • I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

      Guess what - your doctor is probably behind the times and you'd get better outcomes if you were being treated by a whippersnapper from a good medical residency program with a cou

      • Really? When I gained 50 pounds at the age of 25, was told by numerous young doctors to get on Lipitor and other drugs for blood pressure and choleserol, and was having bouts of emotional frustration and told to get on an anti-depressent "temporarily" by 5 different doctors, I said no.

        My elderly doctor said lower my carbs. I did. 6 months later, problems were all solved. 5 years later they're still fine.

        Doctors used to make housecalls. Most won't. Doctors used to see you the moment you walked in the o
    • "Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story."

      Breaching patient confidentiality is far worse for business than an unhappy patient with a blog.
    • Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers [lewrockwell.com], have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality [lewrockwell.com], and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago [lewrockwell.com].

      That's an interesting correlation. The more the government has gotten involved in health care and health insurance industries, the worst the quality of the service has gotten.

  • Doctors smockters (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hackstraw ( 262471 ) *

    I'm always late to a doctor's "appointment". Why should I have to wait for them after I already made an appointment?

    Also, fact is that there is little difference between a doctor and someone that makes up mnemonic rhymes to monty python songs for 4 years and a doctor. Granted, there are decent doctors out there, but I've never been too impressed with your average doctor.

    I welcome websites and/or other means of communication to bring doctors to our level. To me they are basically a non-technical auto mech
    • I work for a medical publication and deal with practicing and research MDs and PhDs all day. After seeing their abilities to read and follow simple directions, I'm scared as hell of going to visit a doctor again...
    • I'm always late to a doctor's "appointment". Why should I have to wait for them after I already made an appointment?

      Years ago, I complained about this to the private doctor I saw at the time. He explained that he scheduled his patients at five minute intervals, but took an average of fifteen minutes per patient. That means that after the first patient of the day, he was already two patients behind, and getting farther off schedule all the time. He saw nothing wrong with this. The next time I made an a

    • Re:Doctors smockters (Score:5, Informative)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:28PM (#13559289) Homepage Journal
      I'm always late to a doctor's "appointment". Why should I have to wait for them after I already made an appointment?

      Congratulations, asshole: now everyone after you has to wait even longer.

      My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone. Given that her alternatives are:

      1. Spend the extra required time to treat that patient, or
      2. Tell them, "sorry, your allotted time is up. Please see the receptionist about scheduling more next month."
      Which would you pick, and why? Would you give the same answer if your problem was the one that's taking longer than expected?

      Believe it or not, the vast majority of doctors would really like to stay on schedule. Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.

      In short, don't be a dick and make matters worse. A lot of the doctors I hang around with have an "n strikes" rule: screw them over n times without a legitimate excuse, and suddenly expect to find that all your appointments are at 6:30am or 7:00pm, whichever is least convenient for you. Is that really a battle you want to fight, particularly since if you weren't already sick you wouldn't be seeing them in the first place?

      • Re:Doctors smockters (Score:3, Interesting)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) *

        My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone.

        On occasion? Well, your wife is a much more considerate doctor than any I've ever seen, then. Every doctor I've ever been to is always running late unless I'm one of the first appointments of the day (which is what I try to arrange, actually).

        The cause is obvious, and related to w

    • The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take. With the advent of insane cost-cutting measures, we're under enormous pressure to see as many patients as possible, so we have to make best-guesses. And know what? Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, a patient has a more complicated or time-consuming case, and we have to go a bit "over". Yeah, that's built into an average day, but you never quite know. And if you don't like it, you're welcome to go

  • Sue them until they like you. (Score:5, Funny)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:08PM (#13559098) Homepage Journal
    Sue your customers until they love you. It's working for the RIAA, after all!
  • ...I plan to file suit against any /.ers that disagree with my posts.

  • Why is this surprising?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:10PM (#13559111) Homepage
    Remember the last election? We had "free speech zones." People who disagreed with the politicians' (both Right and Left) point of view were told to go somewhere else to protest. And furthermore, it was illegal for the press to enter those areas.

    We no longer have real free speech in our country. Sure we can open a titty-bar. Sure we can show boobies on HBO. But if the status quo doesn't want the truth to be said, be it the government or the medical establishment, they'll stomp it out. Get used to it. The 60s are over folks.

    • Re:Why is this surprising?! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:17PM (#13559177) Journal
      Your point is taken, but libel is not and never was protected speech. The fact that the doctor sued under libel indicates that the claims were false or misrepresented. If the were in fact true, the doctor would gain nothing by bringing the case other than proving the claims were indeed true.

      • Re:Why is this surprising?! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:19PM (#13559210) Homepage
        Yes, it COULD be true that the claims were false or misrepresented. But more likely than not the lawsuits were filed to shut people up.
      • As if the average patient can afford a lawsuit. The burden should be on the doctor to show evidence that the defendant's claims are false before such a suit is filed.

      • Re:Why is this surprising?! (Score:4, Informative)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:14PM (#13559715) Homepage
        Your point is taken, but libel is not and never was protected speech. The fact that the doctor sued under libel indicates that the claims were false or misrepresented.

        No. If the doctor had sued and won it would indicate that the claims were false or misrepresented. This just means that the doctor and his lawyer believe that to be the case.

        The RIAA suing an old granny for copyright infringement, it does not materially mean that she was infringing. It means that's what the RIAA think.

        SCO suing everyone for copyright infringement/breach of license doesn't indicate that people probably did steal from SCO. It means SCO believe so.

        Threatening someone with the way you interpreted the situation in no way is an objective view of what actually happened. ANd just because someone files suit doesn't mean their suit has merit or that the defendant was guilty.
    • How the hell does tripe like this get modded insightful? Yes, there were free speech zones, but that was for two specific events, the nomination conventions. And that was done to lessen the chances of confrontations that could lead to violence. There are many protests of the current administration and they aren't being shut down by any fascist society that you imagine to be in existence.

  • The Last Resort (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:11PM (#13559118)
    Suing is always a last resort for those who can't refute complaints with truth.

    Sounds like more states need anti-SLAPP laws. [actwin.com]

    • Re:The Last Resort (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:27PM (#13559275) Journal
      Suing is always a last resort for those who can't refute complaints with truth.

      No. That's roughly like saying the police are just for pussies who can't take care of themselves. (analogy police come hither and destroy my analogy).

      In this case the complaints consisted of claims against the defendent. The person making the claims is when they are defamatory is responsible for being able to justify the claims. The doctor could have waged a publicity battle against the patients, but most likely would have suffered more harm than good simply because the public doesn't take the time to read through all of the details, look for opposing views, or weigh the logic and evidance supporting the claims. If someone attempts to attack you by slandering you in public using unfounded or false claims a lawsuit is an appropriate option. It may not be the best option in all situations, but it's certainly not categorically the last option.
    • Do these sites provide a section for the doctor to respond?

      • Re:The Last Resort (Score:3, Informative)

        by sessamoid ( 165542 ) *

        Do these sites provide a section for the doctor to respond?

        Doesn't matter if they do. Unless the patient signs a release of medical information waiver which specifically waives any sanctions under the HIPAA, the doctors can't respond in public. Even before HIPAA, most doctors wouldn't have responded under the principle of patient confidentiality. So essentially, it's a name-calling game where only one side is allowed to shout epithets, and the other side is required by law to keep silent.

    • If the sites dont allow for the accused to reply in full on the same page as the complaint, then there is no way to refute the complaints with the truth to the same audience. Since a lot of these sites are single people setting up 'hit' sites, they arent about to allow their accused to represent their own point of view and ruin the concept of the site.
  • Anonymous comments are tolerated here, and there's even the potential to defame [slashdot.org].
    Not too many people complaining, though.

  • What about the other way around? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alan_dershowitz ( 586542 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:14PM (#13559148)
    It wasn't that long ago that there was a big stink over a doctor-run web site that blacklisted malpractice plaintiffs so that doctors could deny them future coverage, regardless of who won the case. Google cached link [64.233.167.104] I guess it's not so funny when someone does it to them.

  • Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Daveznet ( 789744 )
    I didnt know there was anyhting illegal about posting on ones experience. If a patient does not post false information and made up facts about the person and it is all just their opinion then these Doctors have a moot argument.

  • Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gcw1 ( 914577 )
    Before i see a dentist or a doctor i like to get some opinions on who I should or shouldn't go to. Which can be difficult if you are new to the area. If it's constructive critism I see no reason why it shouldn't be posted online, but not outright slander. Last thing I want is some hack fixing my teeth or prescribing me meds.

  • Buy insurance before you criticize anyone publicly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:17PM (#13559185)
    For an average of $300 per year, just about anyone can get Umbrella Liability Insurance. [iii.org] Such insurance shields you from many things including slander and libel claims.

    That way, the evil corporation or incompetent doctor that wants to shut you up with a frivilous lawsuit will really be suing your multi-billion dollar insurance company. $1 Million worth of coverage is typically around $300 per year. Multi-million policies are frequently available for not much more.

  • The reason the doctors' are suing is this: true, you do have free speech, but you have to be responsible with it. If you slander (I guess in this case it would be libel) someone, they have the right to sue you. You would need to have disclaimers galour on the web-sites and all sorts of legal rhetoric to protect your backside. Case in point is the site bestbuysux.org. He has been sued a couple of times and has had to reorganize content and post disclaimers.

    As long as you act responsiblly and have your backsi

  • Blogs aren't always about the Truth, remember. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sentack ( 610177 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:18PM (#13559199)
    Be it a blog, a forum or just a plain old web zine. Remember, just because someone wrote it on the web, doesn't mean jack that it's even vaugly true. Remember people, one thing people love to do on the web, is exagerate, boast and inflame. And just because it involves doctors doesn't mean it's any diffrent.

    Some of the complaints may be true, but on the Internet, accountability is zero, so you don't know if a post is true or fabricated. ONe person can falsely generate thousands of complaints against a doctor or, appeal to only those who wish to complain about a doctor and provide steeply one sided evidence against the individual.

    I know a lot of people here may not like Doctors and the fortunes they apparently gain. But it's not without cause and things like this aren't making it any easier for them. No I don't want to give them a free pass but don't judge everything by it's cover people. Be weary of complaints and get a second opinion before you start marching along side the vocal minority.

    Sentack

  • Use the existing system for settlement of claims! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sattwic ( 545957 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:19PM (#13559207) Homepage Journal
    Without exhausting existing avenues for complains against Physicians/Surgeons, posting directly on the Internet should be discouraged.

    Not, it is not a issue of free speech, but if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer.

    I know this as a Physician myself.

    As an alternative one can always report to the licensing boards and ask for review by a panel of experts and specialists instead of setting up a novice 'peoples' court and run a witch hunt.

    Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed.. by virtue of visiting a doctor, a patient agrees to put himself/herself under that doctor's care. The burden is on the patient to find a physician whom he can believe.

    If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?

    My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures. Wild West tactics might only backfire on the general population.
    • As an alternative one can always report to the licensing boards and ask for review by a panel of experts and specialists instead of setting up a novice 'peoples' court and run a witch hunt.

      Doctors overseeing doctors? Why is that not the fox guarding the henhouse?

      If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details abou

    • Re:Use the existing system for settlement of claim (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spadefoot ( 908522 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:31PM (#13559315)
      I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that the Non-Disclosure agreement is entirely a one-way contract.

      The Doctor is bound to not disclose information to 3rd parties (except within the pre-defined bounds of their privacy policy). The patient is certainly free to discuss the details of his or her healthcare with anyone they wish.

      I really don't understand what non-disc agreement would ever be in place that would stop a patient from discussing his medical care with 3rd parties. The patient OWNS that information.
    • "if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer."

      If physicians know that their patients have limited access to recourse against them, I am certain that quality of service would suffer.

      "If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential

  • The need for "Due Process" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:20PM (#13559213)
    The core problem, in the age of the internet, is that anyone can say anything about anybody and be potentially accessible on a world stage. Thus, what some patient posts about a doctor can have a significant impact on that doctor. If I Google a doctor's name and some thisdoctorsucks.com entry pops up, I'm not going to visit that doctor.

    As it stands, doctors have no recourse (except for lawsuits) to put in their side of the story. I'd bet that many cases of malpractice are actually cases of "malpatients" -- the patient's own stupidity, irresponsibility, lack of candor, or failure to follow the doctor's recommendations contributed to or even caused the problem. Add to that the simple problem of mismatch of social styles and one person's "uncaring" physician is another person's efficient doctor.

    My point is that any system that potentially inflicts damage on a person's reputation should have a "due process" mechanism that lets that accused defend their actions or tell their side of the story. To avoid costs, this system needs to be automated so that if the patient can post their allegations online, the doctor can reply with their side of the story.

  • Only Libel if false (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RedACE7500 ( 904963 )
    It's only libel if what the person is saying about the doctors is false.

    ... in order to recover damages a public person (as a celebrity or politician) who alleges libel (as by a newspaper) has to prove that "the statement was made with 'actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not" ...

    The defendant may plead and establish the truth of the statements as a defense.

  • Your Career (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unidyneVII ( 867801 )
    This is just unfair. Look at it this way: what if it were your career? If you work a service job, what if managers from companies worldwide in your industry started manager forums to talk about your performance and possibilies for hiring. Its way too unreliable. If you work a professional job at a desk-- same deal. And if you're a manager, what if clients all started forum-ing about your business? Plus, is there any check for truth in comments? Perhaps I'm just a malignant troublemaker and decide one aft
  • Doctors are the only field that doesn't compete on either price or quality. Yet, we wonder why it is expensive and the doctors make so many mistakes.

  • I'm all in favor of public online complaints (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kf6auf ( 719514 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:22PM (#13559227)

    If what they are saying is not factual then it should be very clearly presented as nothing more than an opinion. The free flow of information like this is an integral part of capitalism.

    IANAL but while I believe that the doctors can sue for false information posted online that can be shown to cause damages they would have to file a suit, prove that the information posted online is false and not solely an opinion. They have no grounds to prevent people from posting their comments and can only file a suit after the fact (that is, prior restraint is not allowed). Imagine if M$ decided to sue for every "Windows Sucks" or other anti-M$ comment on slashdot.

    Unfortunately, lawsuits are expensive, but the most likely result will be some sort of disclaimer or the site simply removing the offensive (whether true or not) comments.

  • This is not a Dupe to my knowledge but this seems familiar like for a website where students report on their teachers. So that future students and maximize their investment in education and get professors who are actually competent, speak your language, and are not so full on them selves that they can't teach any material that isn't about their PHD. Then some Profs. Got mad at the site. How did that turn out, and probably the same will happen here.

    But doctors have more money then college profs do so they m

  • Book Review (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CultFigure ( 563155 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:25PM (#13559256)
    Can someone please explain to me how this is any different than someone posting a bad review for a book on, say Amazon.com? Or is it that Amazon does in fact receive subpeonas to remove those reviews that can be categorized as libel or slanderous and we, the public, don't hear about it?

    • Re:Book Review (Score:3, Interesting)

      by techno-vampire ( 666512 )
      A friend of mine has a book out. Somebody who doesn't like him posted a nasty review there, full of personal attacks. He saw it and complained to Amazon. Within 24 hours, the review was removed. Yes, you can complain about a bad review, but what they do about it probably depends on what your objections are.

  • Perfectly Legit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by celeritas_2 ( 750289 ) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:27PM (#13559266)
    I think these doctors have every right to sue, and win the cases against many of the online commentators. Sites like lasikfraud are misleading to the public and could lead to poor healthcare decisions. However, I ( and hopefully the judicial system ) have no problem with, and encourage, intelligent reasonable feedback on doctors and hospitals; that is useful to everyone. It seems most of the lawsuit targets are just unhappy people who start flames which intentionally mislead and unfairly damage reputation. Such things are definately and correctly NOT protected by the first ammendment.

  • Respond in kind? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peacefinder ( 469349 ) * <`alan.dewitt' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:28PM (#13559282) Journal
    It's bound to come up, so let me head this question off at the pass:

    Q: Why don't the physicians post their side of the story and let the public decide who is more correct?

    A: The docs cannot simply post their side of the story on a patient's blog in response to the complaints. HIPAA's privacy provisions generally prevent physicians and their staff from doing so.

    In the court of public opinion, only patients have a voice. It's little wonder that some docs might choose to reply via the official court system, because they have no other recourse.
  • ``some doctors are, in turn, defending their reputation by suing the online critics.''

    To me, that sounds like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity.

  • Sued and lost (Score:5, Funny)

    by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:42PM (#13559414) Journal
    I had cancer in my right thigh muscle that was beginning to invade the bone. The oncologist tried radiation but it didn't help. The oncologist refered me to a surgeon to remove my right leg. Only problem was the surgeon's right was my left and the surgeon took the wrong leg. He had to go back and take the diseased leg. Hell of a thing to wake up to.

    I sued and lost. Judge ruled I didn't have a leg to stand on.

  • About Friggin' Time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:05PM (#13559627) Homepage
    It is about time that the medical community was put in check. As far as I can tell there is a culture of protected ineptitude in the medical profession. There are many great doctors, and there are many poor doctors, and there isn't much a patient can do to determine which is which. The medical boards are more akin to a union or religion, and don't help to protect the public at all.

    Most doctors I've seen practicing in recent years prescribe whatever new drugs that are promoted to them, usually in the form of free office pens and advertising leaflets. There doesn't seem to be much understanding of the patient or the underlying causes or anything like that. Maybe I'm confusing medical research with medical practice here, but there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Some doctors I've encountered seem incapable of figuring things out. They can't explain their thought process or answer questions clearly. They're about as sophisticated as an average car mechanic. The medical community must be able to be improved.

    If you have a terrible experience and you can't talk about it, then how will this ever get sorted out? If the claims were truly libelous (damaging and false) then the doctor's suit is reasonable... but I have a feeling that some doctors would like to avoid valid criticism. Sorry, but I think the patient's right's trump the doctor's. Hopefully enough of these anonymous sites can be successful that it shakes things up.

    Cheers.

  • This isn't about freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)

    by serano ( 544693 ) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:08PM (#13559657)
    Sites like this can be useful for frank discussion of the merrits/failings of a person or company, but they are also frequently abused.

    My partner is a professor. He has complained to me about ratemyprofessors.com, where students who are disgrunteled for getting bad grades can write very derogatory and misleading things about their teachers. The site makes no attempt to assess truth, and there's no opportunity for the professor to respond.

    This pattern of website gives a sense of anonymity and can be more about freedom from responsible speech rather than freedom of speech.

    Yes, my partner could probably find out who made which comment and sue for slander or libel, but that seems like such an extreme measure. Maybe people should sue though. Many people would not post the things they do if they thought they would actually be held responsible for their comments.

  • docboard.org (Score:3, Informative)

    by Johnboi Waltune ( 462501 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:25PM (#13559805)
    Rather than rely on some site full of unsubstantiated and anonymous claims, try docboard.org [docboard.org]. They have links to each state's online database of medical license-holders.

    In most states, you can search for your doctor and see their list of malpractice suits, medical board disciplinary actions, and a record of any crimes for which they've been convicted.

    Facts, not hearsay.

  • What's wrong with this picture? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by piecewise ( 169377 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:25PM (#13559808) Journal
    So, doctors shouldn't be sued by patients, but patients should not be allowed to sue doctors.

    Gotta love the hypocrisy of the conservative agenda (tort reform).

    The truth is, if it came down to a choice, I'd vote for the little girl who will need $15 million in medical care to keep her alive for 40 years over a doctor who's upset by a bad review. But I suppose a $250,000 cap on punitive damages that keeps her alive for.. a few months.. is good enough.

    If conservatives truly cared about lawsuits and the medical community, they would work with Democrats to allow drug reimportation and bring drug prices down, which would create a more competitive market and lower the needs of those types of patients.

    The truth is, $15 million is a lot. But believe it or not, that's how expensive our system is.

    But of course, it's the health care industry and drug companies that contribute mostly to conservatives, so we need to make sure they make billions --- even if it's at the cost of people in need.

    Sorry, doctors, my ears are plugged on this one.

  • Facts or Lible? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:39PM (#13559914) Homepage Journal
    If they are stating *facts* or clearly stating that its a personal opinion, it should be clearly legal to post the information.

    If the doctors prevail, its one more strike against freespeech.

    Now, if they are *lies* then more power to the Doctors.. and no, i couldnt get to it to read the article.

  • Something to think about... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stam66 ( 633108 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:54PM (#13560680)
    I am a physician and find this discussion intriguing...
    Are patients allowed to "badmouth" their doctors online? How is this different (apart from scope) from "word of mouth"?
    Are doctors not allowed recourse to protect they "good name", particularly those with private practices where this would essentially equate to their livelihood?

    There is merit to most of the comments made above.

    However, keep in mind that there are many factors that are not immediately obvious to many of the posters here:

    1) Medicine *is difficult*. You cannot become a doctor simply by memorising rules for 4 years (or 6 years in most countries). Unfortunately, human minds and bodies refuse to obey fixed rules and often there are more exceptions than there are rules. While many illnesses may be both straightforward and easy to diagnose and treat, invariably one has to deal with patients where things are not clear, where the diagnosis is not obvious, where the standard treatment for specified condition may do more harm than good; being supremely skilled at invasive procedures does not guarantee that a patient may not come to harm from a complication.

    There is no "black or white", no definitive test to diagnose everything, not golden therapy to treat everything.Situations like these can only be dealt with using knowledge and drawing from personal and collective experience. That does mean unfortunately that it's not always possible to get it right - wrong diagnoses are made, wrong treatments are given, complications may occur from a procedure - but that does not necessarily make a doctor "bad". For the patient though this may be catastrophic, something which doctors are acutely aware of.
    But if an error occured in good faith, should that doctor be splattered on a web page?

    2) As with any profession, there are people in it for the money only and will stop at nothing to get it. However, in most cases this is not what affects patients. In many european countries (i can't speak for the USA) doctors are put in a position where they have to deal with rare and serious conditions outside of their expertise and/or are made to do so in extremely stressful environments (long hours, being paged by 6 different people simultaneously etc). Medical and para-medical staff do their best to cope, in most cases successfully, but occasionally problems will arise from this.
    Just think: If you were trying to calculate your taxes after working for 36 hours and people kept phoning you and knocking on your door and your 3-year old kept screaming - how well do you think you'd do?

    3) A surprising number of patients seek medical attention without any real physical disease; anxiety is a common theme and can lead to great problems in the patient-doctor relationship. It is tough for medical/nursing staff to deal with very anxious people, as they are treated as emotional punching bags and it can be tough for these patients as anxiety often cannot be "talked away"; they really feel unwell and cannot understand why. At the same time this does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the patient. To put it bluntly - just because they're mad doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with 'em.
    But not infrequently it is people with high degree of anxiety that are the most vitriolic against medical staff, in spite best efforts from both nurses and doctors.

    These are just a few points from a medical perspective. One of the greatest problems in patient-doctor relationships is communication. Problems here are what frequently will lead to litigation for various reasons. But the problem may not necessarily lie with the doctor, as communication is a 2-way street (for example, i make it common practice to repeat myself ad nauseam as it can be startling what some people just don't retain or refuse to take in [denial]).

    Of course, there are doctors not up to the task and perhaps should not be practising medicine for whatever reason. But I believe that these should be investigated by a professional body to assess their

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Close