It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us"

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us"



arstechnica.com...


When I walked into the offices of Dr. Ken Cirka, I was looking for cleaner teeth, not material for an Ars Technica story. I needed a new dentist, and Yelp says Dr. Cirka is one of the best in the Philadelphia area. The receptionist handed me a clipboard with forms to fill out. After the usual patient information form, there was a "mutual privacy agreement" that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to .....
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 24-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

...... there was a "mutual privacy agreement" that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to Dr. Cirka. Surprised and a little outraged by this, I got into a lengthy discussion with Dr. Cirka's office manager that ended in me refusing to sign and her showing me the door.


I had become interested in the more recent phenomenon of people amassing databases of user submitted 'reviews' of services they and their community have received from Doctors, Dentists, Plumbers, Cleaning Services, rental businesses, and the like....

Apparently they have served well (or at least so it seems.)

But the interesting thing I noted was that lawyers were rarely, if ever included on such lists. I come to find out that it's because it's standard form to sign a mutual nondisclosure agreement when retaining an attorney... not so for doctors and the rest... until now...


The agreement is based on a template supplied by an organization called Medical Justice, and similar agreements have been popping up in doctors' offices across the country. And although Medical Justice and Dr. Cirka both claim otherwise, it seems pretty obvious that the agreements are designed to help medical professionals censor their patients' reviews.


The truth is, that most professionals using this "Medical Justice" product (meaning they paid for the privilege) are probably throwing their money away because legally, they are on very tenuous ground.

But in the end, you'll have to decide, dear reader, whether the author is overly concerned, or I am.... I think calling this system "Health Care" is rather disingenuous in light of these kinds of 'protections' being sought my medical professionals.

It seems more like business... where the point is revenue and lack of liability, instead of service and care.

arstechnica.com...
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 24-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I wonder how valid that agreement would be? If one signs a contract under coercion or duress, then it can invalidate the contract. Let's say someone goes into the dentist's office with a tooth ache or worse, and it comes down to signing the agreement and receiving treatment or not signing it and being shown the door. It seems to me that there would be both coercion and duress.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Well as someone who has managed medical practices for many years I totally understand why practioners are doing this. I have had several instances where we had doctors who saw patients and the patient was unhappy (some valid..many not so valid). But instead of addressing the issue with me, the physician or someone else on the staff they went home and wrote an online review that was usually way worse than their actual experience. Most business owners can add a comment or address the issue online to show that they tried to resolve the issue. Because of HIPAA and other privacy laws, a medical practitioner cannot respond without the patient's written consent for fear of violating the patient's privacy regarding their medical issue. I am not saying that some people don't have valid complaints but its very one sided.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


The sad thing is how many people would sign this blindly without thinking about it or reading the fine print.
Most people just sign things without reading them.

We are living in the age of information....its pretty sad people don't think about their privacy.


People need to know where their privacy starts and where it ends.

See ya on facebook.



i am not surprized tho...everything seems to want to collect info for something or other.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AllInMyHead
 


The pendulum swings both ways....

If no abuses took place, no 'overkill' responses would be needed.

Sadly, this particular practice is a construct of the legal community - and frankly, doctors are often preyed upon by both those injured and not. It seems however, to be less than community-minded to create a protection which effectively translates to "I may injure you - but you can't say anything about it."

Perhaps if doctors weren't so well "protected" people wouldn't assume they were setting themselves up to be victimized.

I'm sure there is a middle ground.... but no one seems to be looking for it.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


To be perfectly honest, I suspect most do sign the thing with out so much as a second thought. After all, patients arrive for treatment, not legal agreements.

Hopefully this trend will die off as new approaches to doctor-patient relationships take shape.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AllInMyHead
 


There has been no challenge yet that didn't involve a sealed settlement, so we may never know.

Civil law.... another bumpy road.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I tell you what, I will never sign such an agreement after all I am under government subside insurance because my husband is retire and if the doctor is part of the government agreement, denying services will put him or her out of the list.

But I wonder if they also have their arses cover on this one too.

I hate doctors they are nothing but big pharma pill pushers, but sometimes I have not choice but to see one and I will refuse to sign such agreement.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AllInMyHead
 


Oh well. Like the rest of us on the internet, you (the general "you") just have to deal with the flaming and consider that online rants should generally be taken (and are likely taken) with a grain of salt. If you can't do that, then perhaps a WWW connection is too dangerous a weapon for your child mind to be trusted with.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I hate doctors they are nothing but big pharma pill pushers, but sometimes I have no choice but to see one and I will refuse to sign such agreement.


I think what you wrote is part of the reason they have to cover their butts.
Some of those pills are pushed through the FDA by greasing palms with cash.
Its a slippery slope but with some good lawyers...everythings just fine.

The problem with this is that most need care and will sign anything to get it.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
In a world where there are too many blogs and reviews of pop-culture items, I think reviews on practices where one's health and well-being is seriously altered, for better or for worse, should be scrutinized. It should come with the territory. Similar to being a cop, an officer of the law should know they are held to a higher standard, and people will be watching, and talking about them, for better or for worse. That is just how the world works, folks. Those with significant powers over others, need to be watched and "reviewed", including doctors who literally have a patient's life and well-being in their hands.

As another has said, doctors "like the rest of us" can deal with internet ramblings and all internet users can take words thrown out there, with a grain of salt. Most people can recognize the ramblings of an idiot, or a complete fabrication, or exaggeration.

If the medical staff feels the "review" is completely in the wrong, and grossly misrepresents the practice, then they can pursue legal action against the person, if need be or possible. Otherwise, deal with it.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Really, so to benefit big pharma and their whores the doctors, I have to give away my freedom of speech.

well is people like you that help erode the constitution in this nation.

Thanks but not thanks, doctors and big pharma can kiss my big latino butt.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 

well its people like you that help erode the constitution in this nation.


People like me??

What did i do other then posting my opinion on an internet forum??

Why take this out on me...I have done nothing??

They can kiss mine as well.


edit on 24-5-2011 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


This is to benefit big pharma no necessary doctors, after all when a doctor prescribe drug you will get the reviews in the INTERNET by actual users telling the realities of many drugs by experience than the manufactured literature given with the drug.

I bet that this is to stop people from posting real side effects that can be dangerous to you, rather than waiting for a life endangered event to find out for yourself.

Big pharma profit makings are at stake here.

Is a lot of independant reviews side of drugs and treatment by patients on line.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
I think what you wrote is part of the reason they have to cover their butts.


I thought you were targeting my post with that comment if that is not right then I apologize.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I make no excuses for anyone other then myself and don't apologize for anyone other then myself.
I was just pointing out the obvious and agreeing with you.
Cheers.



edit on 24-5-2011 by DrumsRfun because: I have fallen....and can't get up!!



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Dr.s may push certain big pharma medications; however, we, as the patients, have the responsibility to discuss the prescribed medication with our doctors and raise any concerns we may have. Ultimately, if you don't like the Rx that is given to you, then ask the Dr. for an alternate medication.

Remember, we go and see the Dr. in times of medical need. They may prescribe one medication, but you can request another. If there is no alternate medication for your condition, then the Dr. isn't really pushing big pharma; rather, they are treating you with the only medically accepted option. If that option is unacceptable, then that raises the question: Why did you even go to the Dr. in the first place?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I wonder how valid that agreement would be? If one signs a contract under coercion or duress, then it can invalidate the contract. Let's say someone goes into the dentist's office with a tooth ache or worse, and it comes down to signing the agreement and receiving treatment or not signing it and being shown the door. It seems to me that there would be both coercion and duress.



Yes and the contract just like most online agreements are NULL AND VOID.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I wouldn't sign it. I would be hi-tailing it out the door fast. If that doctor or dentist had a problem with bad reviews, then it raises a major red flag with me. What the heck are they doing to their patients that would cause them to mandate people to sign this type of waiver. Do I really want to find out how bad their practice really is?

It automatically puts their practice in my eyes as mediocre at best, and at worst 100x worse than the worst experience I ever had with a dentist or doctor.

It really tells me that they don't trust their patients to say anything nice about them. If there are not hundreds of good reviews with a doctor that makes people sign a wavier, that speaks more loudly and clearly than the few good reviews they allowed people to post or have up on their site. If the reviews are mainly on the doctors site, and not found at other places, that puts up a red flag that the reviews are mainly fabricated. If it is a video review, anyone can pay someone to give a good review in front of a camera.

Honestly, I would rather go to a doctor with good and bad reviews even if it makes his practice look mediocre, than go to a doctor who is so scared of his patients that he feels the need to take away our rights. Then what is the next thing that doctor will be telling me I have to do, or he/she will drop me as a patient?
edit on 24-5-2011 by Mystery_Lady because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join