Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website 250
Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.
The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.
Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."
Re:Link to the website (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, TFA is reg-required (Do I really want to spend x minutes signing up & agreeing to God know what on a paper I'll never read again?). So, for your reading pleasure the story from metnews [metnews.com].
Lastly, shouldn't that headline read: Woman's Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website upheld
Patient's privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.
If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.
Re:Link to the website (Score:4, Interesting)
The Sacramento Bee has the headline, "Woman wins right to attack her plastic surgeon on the Web".
Attack? What the hell?
It's not about winning the lawsuit, necessarily (Score:2, Interesting)
As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.
Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial [cgstock.com].
Re:The surgeon may have a point... (Score:5, Interesting)
The pic looks fake.
Re:I'm not so sure on this one (Score:2, Interesting)
How many previous malpractice suits there are are irelevent to whether or not there was malpractice in this case. First of all, her statement that there may be many more cases that were settled out of court, is designed to lead you to make the conclusion there probably have been many more cases. This is actually almost certainly false. Generally, any time you are going to request money you issue the statement of claim to the courts at the very beginning, which starts a law suit. Even cases that are settled out of court, almost 100% of the time, they have a case number. This is done to protect the "plaintiff" against claims of extortion. If you are trying to get money from someone, and no to get them to stop an activity or perform an action, your lawyer will tell you the first thing to do is issue a statement of claim through the courts.
As for the cited cases, malpractice is, unfortunately, much more common for plastic surgeons than other specialties. We also have no way of knowing if those cases were settled in the plaintifs favour or not. They should not alter your opinion of the surgeon unless you take the time to research them. Having them on her site is just more leverage she is trying to use against the doctor.
No, the more I think of it and look at her site, the more I sympathize with the surgeon.
Re:Link to the website (Score:4, Interesting)
Reconstructive Surgery NOT Benefitted. (Score:5, Interesting)
My experience is that reconstructive surgery is deteriorating. Plastic surgeons are now learning to do cosmetic procedures, rather than reconstructive. I have a genetic defect with my eyelids, and had three surgeries as a child. Now decades later, I could use additionaladvanced reconstructive surgery to give my eyes a more reasonable appearance.
Eyes are very important to our facial expressions, and although my friends think I look lovely, strangers sometimes do an unpleasant double-take when they see me.
So I wanted to give it another shot, figuring reconstruction has improved since I was a poor child receiving free care.
The Stanford geneticist recommended a Stanford specialist and I went to see him. The waiting room was filled with literature about "eye lifts" for regular, aging people. I consult with the doctor (and I secretly recorded the conversation) and he did his utmost best to talk me out of any surgery at all. I could tell he was floundering.
I provided him records of what had been done, and suggested w2hat could be done, and made clear that I was not expecting miracles, just a slight improvement would be worth it.
He called in his senior, and they spent the next four minutes trying to pass the buck and make the other person do the surgery. The way we left it, was they were going to "contact my insurance" and I never heard back, despite sevferal phone calls.
These were Stanford Medical Center professionals, recommended by the geneticist who deals with birth defects, and THEY only wanted to do normal eyelid lifts. I was so disheartened, I never tried again.
GRR.
IMO way too fscking much money is spent on frivolous surgery.
My story, and I'm too tired to be concise so I'll just... submit it.
Re:The surgeon may have a point... (Score:1, Interesting)
So, here's the version with an adjusted face length [imageshack.us] and I also did one with a less surprised look [imageshack.us] (crudely copied over the eyes from the left).