Doctors trying to gag their patients

[IDrinkaRum]

Is it a good idea for Doctors to have patients sign waivers saying the patients can't rate them on websites?

Some doctors don't like that patients are critiquing them on various websites. Now the doctors are trying to fight back

[katie kaboom]

Well if they don't like it, there must be a good reason for it. You would think they would welcome the chance to get positive ratings from their patients. They might get more patients that way.

The only ones I can see having a problem with it are the ones that treat their patients badly. In which case, those are the doctors people need to know about. Silencing your patients so you can treat them like crap without anyone knowing is utterly ridiculous.

My fiance and I have had some bad experiences with doctors since we moved to Jersey. It would have been helpful to know in advance how these doctors act towards their patients. Then we would have known which doctors to avoid.

If the doctors that are fighting this win, what little faith i had left in the medical profession in general will be completely gone.

[Sylvia727]

This is blooming ridiculous. If my doctor presented me with this, I would find another doctor immediately. The internet is filled with trolls. That's the natural state of the internet. To tell people that they cannot receive treatment unless they agree not to criticize the services they receive is wrong. Word of mouth is how people choose tradesmen, doctors included. A bad review may hurt a good doctor's reputation, but that's not a good enough reason to try to silence every person needing medical care.

[katie kaboom]

The internet is filled with trolls. A bad review may hurt a good doctor's reputation, but that's not a good enough reason to try to silence every person needing medical care.

But if they truly are good, why give them a bad review? I would think even trolls have better things to do than trash doctors who don't deserve it. Seems to me the trolls usually go after someone on a personal level, not a professional one.

Then again, maybe the little shred of faith i still have in humanity is still too much.

[Fashion Lad!]

If my doctor asked me to do that, I'd sign.

There are way too many psychosomatics out there that want everytime of pill, drug and treatment because a commercial. Or, they googled a few symptoms and now think they have a rare disease that only affects people who have climbed to the top of a tree in Africa to have a smoke while scratching the horn on a unicorn. (Trying to be as obscure as possible.) When the doctor won't prescribe them the drug that they feel they get angry.

Besides, I've never honestly had a bad experience with a doctor. What if it's a doctor you've been going to for years and they presented that to you? Would you at the drop of a hat find a new doctor?

[katie kaboom]

Besides, I've never honestly had a bad experience with a doctor. What if it's a doctor you've been going to for years and they presented that to you? Would you at the drop of a hat find a new doctor?

No necessarily, but I would still be pissed off at being censored like that. Like I said, the good doctors shouldn't be worried about it, because if they are pleasing their patients, I would think they would want people to know that. And if the psychosomatics bitch and moan because the doctor wouldn't prescribe them something, i wouldn't automatically assume that that doctor was bad because they didn't give the person the drugs they wanted.

[Greenday]

So, if the doctors aren't doing anything wrong, it shouldn't matter if we write about them or not? I can see the exact same argument being made about the Patriot Act and other controversial things. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what harm does someone listening in on your conversation do? I'd guarantee I'd hear arguments against that one, even though it's the same logic.

I don't see anything wrong with the doctors wanting this. So they don't want people talking about them behind their back. Big deal. I'm sure most (if not all) would prefer the same thing.

[katie kaboom]

It's not talking about them behind their back. It's an assessment of the doctor from their patients' point of view. How many people read reviews on everything from cars to movies to cell phone providers? Do all those reviews automatically signal bad news just because someone could say something bad in them? No, and this situation is no different.

If I were on the fence about choosing a particular doctor, and I read positive reviews on them, it would help me decide to see them. I fail to see why this should be such a problem for doctors. It would benefit the ones that deserve the praise and save people from the ones that don't.

[protege]

Still, I don't like the idea that they're going to violate someone's Constitutional rights. Freedom of speech, anyone? Last time I checked, we still had that it this country. Also, I don't see how this is different than any of the other "consumer" boards around the net. You don't see mechanics, retail employees, or other people wanting a gag order because someone chose to criticize them. Instead, I see it as a few doctors who are upset that someone dared to criticize them. If that's the case, they need to grow up a little and deal.

[Greenday]

The difference is a doctor's job is soley based on his reputation. A large business like McDonalds or Wally World doesn't get nearly as hurt by one or two people saying bad things about them.

[katie kaboom]

And if he's a good doctor, his reputation will be fine. And if he's not a good doctor, people have a right to know that. Once again, i can't see any doctor having a problem with this unless they know they are incompetent, and those doctors are the reason this is an issue in the first place.

[linguist]

what about small businesses like local family-owned restaurants? if i have a bad experience at one, should i not be able to warn others?

if a doctor ignores symptoms of a larger issue, and potentially puts their patient's life in jeopardy, should that patient not be able to warn others?

finally, what about college professors? their jobs are based largely on reputation. as a college student, are you against sites like pickaprof and ratemyprofessor for use in deciding whether or not to take a particular professor's class? if not, can you explain how using sites that similarly rate medical professionals is any different?

ftr, i have and will continue to refuse to sign these coercive "contracts". the last time i went to a doctor who tried to force me into signing one, i told the office manager i would not sign it and was refused treatment. fortunately, it wasn't anything life-threatening. i found a new doctor, filed a complaint with the state health board, and promptly made a negative online review warning others away from this doctor.

[Seshat]

I would think even trolls have better things to do than trash doctors who don't deserve it.

Alas...... they do it anyway.

Besides, I've never honestly had a bad experience with a doctor.

You are SOOOO lucky. You're Lucky McLucky from the planet Luck. You rub unicorn horns and find four-leaf clovers and you know which rainbow has the pot of gold.

I don't think I've had any doctor (excluding specialists) who hasn't failed me in one way or another since I became an adult. And I'm not talking about 'okay, that test proved it isn't thing X, so let's look for Y..' sorts of failures.

I'm talking disregarding symptoms, flatly telling me I'm imagining things, not asking obvious diagnostic questions (from someone who claims to specialise in the field!), refusing to prescribe medications the specialist *HE* sent me to recommends...

[Rapscallion]

Given the way some people act, I can understand why they'd want to bring this sort of contract in.

Some conditions are terminal or cannot otherwise be treated. Just because medicine isn't able to help someone, they very well may give negative feedback because of it. "Can't help" would quickly become "Won't help".

Were I a doctor I'd be leery of any review site giving this sort of review at all. A truly awful doctor shouldn't be allowed to practice, but shouldn't the jury on this be a group of qualified doctors who are independent of the one they're examining?

A purely statistical review of a doctor's activities is fraught with problems. Take a hypothetical situation of looking for a heart doctor. One has a mortality rate for a procedure of 3%, and the other has a mortality rate of 50%. Is the first one better, or is it because the second is better that they get the difficult cases that often would result in patient death anyway?

I don't think there's a chance of an easy answer on this. However, while doctors cannot stop the sites from existing, I really think they're giving ideas to people who wouldn't have thought about a medical review site.

Rapscallion

[katie kaboom]

A truly awful doctor shouldn't be allowed to practice, but shouldn't the jury on this be a group of qualified doctors who are independent of the one they're examining?


Rapscallion

On a professional level, yes, but I think it's also valuable to be able to read a review on a doctor from people who have been treated by that doctor. A jury of qualified doctors aren't going to know how the doctor treats the patient when they are in their office. That's what I want to know about a doctor before I choose whether or not to go to them.

Now if I read one bad review from someone who seems to have a chip on their shoulder, I may disregard it. But if I read a bunch of bad reviews about the same doctor from various people, I would look for another doctor. To me, the personal aspect is just as important as the professional one.