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

Ever sat through a sociology class and heard the story of Nacirema??

In the hierarchy of magical practitioners, and below the medicine men in prestige, are specialists whose designation is best translated as "holy-mouth-men." The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them. They also believe that a strong relationship exists between oral and moral characteristics. For example, there is a ritual ablution of the mouth for children which is supposed to improve their moral fiber. ¶ 9 The daily body ritual performed by everyone includes a mouth-rite. Despite the fact that these people are so punctilious [6] about care of the mouth, this rite involves a practice which strikes the uninitiated stranger as revolting. It was reported to me that the ritual consists of inserting a small bundle of hog hairs into the mouth, along with certain magical powders, and then moving the bundle in a highly formalized series of gestures.[7] ¶ 10 In addition to the private mouth-rite, the people seek out a holy-mouth-man once or twice a year. These practitioners have an impressive set of paraphernalia, consisting of a variety of augers, awls, probes, and prods. The use of [505 begins ->] these objects in the exorcism of the evils of the mouth involves almost unbelievable ritual torture of the client. The holy-mouth-man opens the client's mouth and, using the above mentioned tools, enlarges any holes which decay may have created in the teeth. Magical materials are put into these holes. If there are no naturally occurring holes in the teeth, large sections of one or more teeth are gouged out so that the supernatural substance can be applied. In the client's view, the purpose of these ministrations [8] is to arrest decay and to draw friends. The extremely sacred and traditional character of the rite is evident in the fact that the natives return to the holy-mouth-men year after year, despite the fact that their teeth continue to decay.

Nacirema

I admit to seeing a dentist twice a year, but have never taken the fluoride rinse, had a cavity, or allowed the nazi dentist to whiten my teeth.

I brush once a day, don't floss, and use natural, non-fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash.

The dentist recently stated that my teeth and jaw structure puts me in like the top .01% based on the clients she's had...and that's in an upper middle class area.

It seems to be more a matter of fixing your gunktified, rotting teeth after the damage has already set in, much like what happens in psychiatry.

We should be focusing on preventing the maladies before they are manifest, and accepting the fact that all life eventually withers away with time.

Eat well, be well, and don't worry about your teeth.

Oh yeah, and take lots of teatimes!!

It's super important.

"All your review are belong to us"?

What on earth? What kind of language is that? If a doctor ever spoke to me in that broken up Englsih i would leave immediately.

reply to post by princeofpeace


It is mocking an internet meme that is several years old. It's about a poorly translated video game.

reply to post by Maxmars


This type of thing is what I deal with in my job.

On the one hand, any health practitioner can refuse service to any patient at any time, so long as other treatment options are available. In other words, they can't turn away a severely sick person if they are the only doctor in town, but they can if there is another doctor right down the road.

So, if signing the agreement is a requirement of seeing that particular doctor, then it looks 100% legit and legal to me.

I am making a guess for the next part, but i would say the reason they want ownership of the reviews, is so they can leave up the good ones and have the bad ones removed. They aren't limiting your right to review, but they want a document that gives them permission to contact the website and have negative reviews taken down. That is a pretty sneaky agreement in my opinion!!

My advice is to send a copy of that form to your state's Department of Health and your state's Board of Medicine. There might be some obscure statute that could be interpreted to keep them from doing this, but you will need expert help to get it done.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
"All your review are belong to us"?

What on earth? What kind of language is that? If a doctor ever spoke to me in that broken up Englsih i would leave immediately.

It's a term, that was made popular by the MMO gaming community with respect to what they call real money traders, RMT or simply gold buyer/sellers. The business practice of selling digital currency (fantasy based) and charging real money for it.

Traditionally (and where it started) were with the Chinese....they saw the potential for profit in it...

Anyway to make a long story short, a tagline (more to be read as a joke) is, if you don't pay us for Gold then "all your gear is belong to us" in their broken english.

If people are going to badmouth you, they're going to do it anyways.
This just means the person in charge is afraid of bad reviews and wants the $$$. I go on MD rating sites when I have to see a doctor and guess what? When I've seen doctors with a high rating... they turn out to be great. When I see doctors with a low rating, it's actually accurate why they are so. It's funny because half of them I go to without actually checking the sites themselves and when I come home and check them out of curiosity... 95%+ align with my thoughts.


I saw a doctor who gave me such a ****ing bull**** diagnosis for something I just looked at him and shook my head. I told my family doctor and he said "What the heck is wrong with that guy?"
Sure, some reviews may be unjust, but thus far due to a variety of things I can tell you that the ratings on the sites are thus far pretty accurate for the most part.

Therefore, I'm quite sure the doctor in charge here has some skeletons in the closet or something because if you're truly good... your name will spread around and one or two bad reviews won't taint it.

reply to post by Maxmars


The potential patient was'nt allowed to leave the office with the unsigned agreement? Of course he can and the dentist can't do anything about it. It is the right of any "purchaser" to seek legal advice of any agreement before signing.

Not so sure if this is "on topic" the way the discussion is running.

But doctor patient confidentiality isnt what it used to be back in the day. Now you have to lie to doctor in Pennsylvania.

If you tell them you have a six pack of beer a day you may loose your license. Just rteading this thread brought this back into my mind from 2003.

Link to Background and Article

Big Brother is always watching. Stay between the lines.

Originally posted by Maxmars
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.

thats not exactly true. my dad is a physician and owns his own practice. a guy came in, he had a problem with his foot. he refused surgery, even when he was told if he didn't have the operation, he would most likely lose his foot. he had been to two other doctors who told him the same thing. HE refused. lo and behold, his foot had to be amputated. he sued all three doctors. (doctors lose their license to practice if they are sued three times, even if the person suing loses.) the guy won a case against one of the other doctors, even though he had done no wrong.

true story. while i'm against this, patients can be so fickle when they hear something they don't want to.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
(doctors lose their license to practice if they are sued three times, even if the person suing loses.)

Bob, great points, especially this.

While it's eaasy for us conspiracy theorists to want to assume all blame should be placed upon anyone who is NOT the "citizen" and the citizen is always the one being wronged, it's important to note that equally as often (in this case patients) claims are SO outlandish and far skewed from reality, that they can be tough to keep in check.

Here in the metro NY-NJ-CONN area, there is FAR MORE OFTEN than I would like, a commercial on the radio for "Reputation Defender"......an entire business catering to other businesses who have been targeted unfairly by reviews and, hence their reputations suffering. Like due to ridiculous internet defamation (the keyword being ridiculous, not fair review).

It speaks volumes to the internet crowd in general that this is a necessary business and MORE that, the model works.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I am never inclined to deny that the Doctors and Dentists we are speaking of are also citizens, with rights and privileges due them.

But the account you relayed to us was not about making patients sign non-disclosure agreements, nor would it have mattered to the patient had he done so. I believe the medical community has, for decades now, been led down a path charted by the commercial giants and legal minds who benefit more than anyone else for the the trouble.

Not knowing the particulars of the case, it is impossible to say what justice was served; especially since often the vague legal proceedings obfuscate the true 'harm' which is presumptively entertained during such cases.

But this person you describe didn't lodge a 'criticism' of the doctors; he sued for remuneration. That's a different matter entirely; and one predicated on the attorneys and legal proceedings. I don;t think a non-disclosure agreement can mitigate a lawsuit based upon someone who is willing to allege injury.

reply to post by alphabetaone


Litigiousness is rampant in a world where all the rules are crafted by lawyers. Business is the art of making money.

Doctors and dentists wanting no complaint about their services to be heard by anyone, cannot stand unchallenged unless you are willing to believe that ALL claims and complaints are "wrongly" made. A position which I'm sure the target of such complaints ALWAYS take.

And not all claims can be adjudicated - nor should they. If we recognize that lawsuits are too often 'frivolous' or 'unfounded' what does ti say about our court officers that they persist?

The model you speak of (that works) seems inclined to ensure that no 'unwelcome' statements should be promulgated. Somehow that seems injudicious - or at least one-sided.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

(doctors lose their license to practice if they are sued three times, even if the person suing loses.)

That part is not true. They might lose their insurance, and they will certainly be investigated, but in most cases there is no discipline whatsoever, and losing a license is extremely rare.

Still, I agree that the liability associated with being a doctor is probably not even worth the high income. It is a shame that for all of their hard work, they are susceptible to losing it in an instant over any type of simple mistake or perceived mistake, even if their intentions were good.

Originally posted by Maxmars


The model you speak of (that works) seems inclined to ensure that no 'unwelcome' statements should be promulgated. Somehow that seems injudicious - or at least one-sided.

Yep.

My tone is more one of middle-ground, wherein there is no real answer. The businesses want NO unwelcome statements, and the consumers believe that reviews exist to simply be negative. There is no median.

reply to post by alphabetaone


I respect your position. It occurs to me that eliminating the possibility that a good comment might be shared is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They can't all be bad reviews... although i'm sure those are the only one's that non-disclosure oriented doctors worry about.

reply to post by Maxmars


I refuse to sign stuff all the time. If your doctor or dentist requires you to sign blanket waivers for things, find another. While recently house shopping, a mortgage company presented me wtih the broadest and most inclusive waiver I had ever seen in my life, allowing them access to anything personal about me, for all of time and the right to share it with other "interested parties."

I told them to shove it, and found another bank.

Same with access to my medical files, I make them be specific about exactly which ones they want access to, and I specifically deny them permission to access the others without further permission. People need to read all paperwork placed in front of them, and they need to reject those agreements that only favor the person pushing the paper.

I would ask for compensation for the rights to any reviews I wrote. And find another dentist.

reply to post by Maxmars


*called my dad*

you're right. i was merely trying to point out how many honest doctors are at a legal disadvantage. therefore, i could see why a physician would want to use such a form. pharmacy companies bribe doctors straight up. i know firsthand. in my childhood i was sometimes bitter about not accepting a 5 star cruise for a week, all expenses paid, or a paid resort vacation. i know now that doctors who accept those deals agree to sell the pharmacies new drug, or treatment. whatever it may be. it also causes the prices of the drugs to go up.

as for that law, i was slightly off, but it does exist. you have to lose the case. my dad wanted to fight it, but it was cheaper for his insurance company to settle than to fight the malpractice claim, and the doctor doesn't get a choice. so he got a permanent malpractice mark when he wasn't at fault.

In an effort to crack down on physicians who commit multiple acts of medical malpractice, an amendment to Florida's constitution provides for the suspension of licenses of doctors who commit medical malpractice three times. Under the constitutional amendment, physicians who lose three malpractice suits are subject to license suspension and/or removal.

www.rossfellercasey.com...

Medical Malpractice occurs when a negligent act or omission by a doctor or other medical professional results in damage or harm to a patient.

www.statelawyers.com...:63

that is quite vague wording. alot can be included under that, and it turns into one person's word versus another.
"i informed you of the consequences" "no you didn't" "yes i did"

doctors are under alot of legal pressure.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

458.3311 Emergency procedures for disciplinary action.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no later than 30 days after a third report of a professional liability claim against a licensed physician has been submitted, within a 60-month period, as required by ss. 456.049 and 627.912, the Department of Health shall initiate an emergency investigation and the Board of Medicine shall conduct an emergency probable cause hearing to determine whether the physician should be disciplined for a violation of s. 458.331(1)(t) or any other relevant provision of law.
History.—s. 26, ch. 2003-416.

Florida Statutes

3 Insurance claims within 5 years requires a special emergency investigation to determine if the practitioner is a danger to the health of the citizens. Rarely, if ever, does it result in discipline or suspension of a licensed professional.

Search Page to see if a Doctor has any Discipline in Florida

And here is an excerpt from a Public Watchdog Group showing how few incidents result in lawsuit, and how few lawsuits result in discipline....

§ The number of medical errors reported by Florida hospitals exceeds the number of
medical malpractice claims filed each year by 6 to 1. About two-thirds of malpractice
claims arise during hospitalization. Reports prepared by Florida's Agency for Health Care
Administration have compared reports of adverse incidents in hospitals to the filing of new
malpractice claims. From 1996 through 1999, Florida hospitals reported 19,885 incidents but
only 3,177 medical malpractice claims. This means that for every 6 adverse incidents in the
hospital only 1 malpractice claim is ever filed. See Section I.

§ Six percent of the doctors in Florida are responsible for half the malpractice. Public
Citizen’s analysis of the federal government’s National Practitioner Data Bank information,
which records malpractice judgments and settlements since September 1990, found that
2,674 of the state’s 44,747 doctors have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients.
These doctors are responsible for 51 percent of all payments. Overall, these doctors have paid
$1.2 billion in damages. Despite the fact that claims history predicts future claims, neither the
state medical licensing boards nor the insurance market have been effective in reducing
malpractice. See Section II, which includes examples of the most egregious repeat offenders.

§ Many of Florida’s most dangerous doctors continue to practice and the state watchdog
is asleep on the job. There are 1,555 physicians who have been disciplined by Florida’s state
medical and osteopathic boards for incompetence, misprescribing drugs, sexual misconduct,
criminal convictions, ethical lapses and other offenses. Many were not required to stop
practicing, even temporarily. In fact, only 36 percent of Florida’s disciplinary actions in 2001
were serious – meaning license revocation, suspension, surrender or probation. When
compared to the rest of the country, only two states were worse in that regard, Wisconsin (22
percent) and North Carolina (32 percent). Overall, Public Citizen ranks Florida 26th among
the states in terms of the performance of its state medical board, which is charged with
policing the medical profession. See Section III.