Fezmid Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 http://magazine.angieslist.com/story/onlin...ient-gag-orders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I don't see the issue here. No one forces you to sign the waiver and if you sign something without reading it you're an idiot. Don't like the policy, find a new doctor. Enough people don't like the policy, the doctor's will have to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 i gotta say, the doctor/patient relationship isnt a one way street, if a doctor can't talk about the patient, the patient should bear the same responsibility...at least in a public forum http://magazine.angieslist.com/story/onlin...ient-gag-orders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Wow, I'm surprised to read that people are ok with throwing away their First Amendment rights.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 ...if you sign something without reading it you're an idiot. Unless it's a stimulus bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 i gotta say, the doctor/patient relationship isnt a one way street, if a doctor can't talk about the patient, the patient should bear the same responsibility...at least in a public forum ... except that the doctor is providing a commercial billed service. Same as if you get a bad haircut, if the construction company broke a gas line and blew up your house, you buy a brand of potato chip that tastes like stevestojan or you might post to a consumer forum for help if your used car is a lemon, you're good with not being able to tell your friends and neighbors not to get service or a product from these sources? You're good with chilling free speech? Product disparagement law basically went out the window b/c of Oprah in the beef. And try as they will, I don't believe 'service disparagement' --- ultimately --- will fly in front of the first amendment. That said, don't be the one who has to bring it to the courts by signing something like that --- if your doctor is worth a lick, s/he wouldn't need such (unconstitutional) protection. The moment you think about doing that, it tells me you need to find new a new career path. My dad's side of the family has had GI problems. Doctors have poked, prodded, run blood/urine/MRI/ultrasound/scope/ etc. tests, all to no avail. They haven't the first clue. They took out my brother's appendix in their guessing game --- that wasn't it... now they want his gall bladder. There's a reason why the signs say "Practice." I guess this all goes into there not being enough doctors, nurses, etc. Give them special protection so if they f--- up, it's not common knowledge and they can stay in business and f--- up other people. An order of silence doesn't lead to good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Wow, I'm surprised to read that people are ok with throwing away their First Amendment rights.... It's not throwing away, it's signing away. You have a choice to sign that paper or not to. Most rational people probably wouldn't sign it, and those who don't read it and object afterwards get to learn a good lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It's not throwing away, it's signing away. You have a choice to sign that paper or not to. that works so long as there is real choice involved. If all doctors do it, or even doctors of the type you need to see, then that is a serious issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Seems to sort of thinking as long as it does not happen to me, it is not a concern. Problem is dependent where you are located having a family Doctor is not always based on choice, he or she being the only Doctor in area , deciding to sign or not sign could mean the difference of having care or not having care. It should be noted also article does state that legal experts do not see how such a agreement could be enforceable in court. If such agreement become the accepted norm how far do they go. To your minister, chef, computer tech, teacher. To the corn field anyone who displeases and says bad things. that works so long as there is real choice involved. If all doctors do it, or even doctors of the type you need to see, then that is a serious issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Here's a way to express you opinion on your Doctor RATE YOUR MD or to see what others say before you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's not throwing away, it's signing away. You have a choice to sign that paper or not to. Most rational people probably wouldn't sign it, and those who don't read it and object afterwards get to learn a good lesson. So you're sick, maybe deathly ill. You desperately need medical care. You walk into the doctor, emergency room, etc, and they say "Sign here." You're going to walk out? Regardless -- there are certain rights that you can't sign away, no matter what you sign. For example, in Minnesota, a landlord can put a clause in your lease that says, "I have the right to enter the property at any time for any reason." However that's unenforcible, and they can be sued every instance they enter your apartment without permission, regardless of whether you agreed to it in the lease or not. (and you thought I was going to talk about sat dishes when I mentioned landlords, didn't you? ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don't see the issue here. No one forces you to sign the waiver and if you sign something without reading it you're an idiot. Don't like the policy, find a new doctor. Enough people don't like the policy, the doctor's will have to change it. I find it hard to believe that you read everything you sign from front to back. Granted this is probably a short form but nobody I know reads everything they sign. If people did they'd spend a good portion of their lives reading this crap and would in some cases piss off the people behind them. I agree to a certain extent about being too bad if you don't read before you sign but not always. ... except that the doctor is providing a commercial billed service. Same as if you get a bad haircut, if the construction company broke a gas line and blew up your house, you buy a brand of potato chip that tastes like stevestojan or you might post to a consumer forum for help if your used car is a lemon, you're good with not being able to tell your friends and neighbors not to get service or a product from these sources? You're good with chilling free speech? Product disparagement law basically went out the window b/c of Oprah in the beef. And try as they will, I don't believe 'service disparagement' --- ultimately --- will fly in front of the first amendment. That said, don't be the one who has to bring it to the courts by signing something like that --- if your doctor is worth a lick, s/he wouldn't need such (unconstitutional) protection. The moment you think about doing that, it tells me you need to find new a new career path. My dad's side of the family has had GI problems. Doctors have poked, prodded, run blood/urine/MRI/ultrasound/scope/ etc. tests, all to no avail. They haven't the first clue. They took out my brother's appendix in their guessing game --- that wasn't it... now they want his gall bladder. There's a reason why the signs say "Practice." I guess this all goes into there not being enough doctors, nurses, etc. Give them special protection so if they f--- up, it's not common knowledge and they can stay in business and f--- up other people. An order of silence doesn't lead to good things. The SS comment. (no offense SS it would have been funny about anyone. Especially Deano or Beerball. JMO) I agree with the second bolded part. The third thing is something that in my opinion a lot of people don't understand and are, very rightly so, aggravated by. If you compare the human body to a football field then all we know about the body might take us to the one yard line. Working in a hospital really opens your eyes to how little we know about the workings of the body. There are drugs that are prescribed for people that doctors and pharmacists can't tell you why it works. Aspirin was invented in 1897 and it wasn't until 1970 that we started to understand why it works. Linkage Unfortunately, Hoffmann had to wait for fame. He finished his initial studies in 1897, and his employers didn't pay much attention to it because it was new and they were cautious -- they didn't think it had been tested enough. By 1899, though, one of Bayer's top chemists, a scientist named Dreser, had finished demonstrating the usefulness of the potent new medicine and even gave it a new name: aspirin. It is believed that the name comes from a plant relative of a rose that makes salicylic acid (several plants make this compound, not just the willow). The Bayer company could then support the tested medicine; they spread the word and marketed the new pill widely. Over the next hundred years, this medicine would fall in and out of favor, at least two new families of medicines would be derived from it, and innumerable research articles would be published about aspirin. Thousands have been published in the past five years alone! One of the most important pieces of research about aspirin came in the early 1970s, when a British scientist named John Vane and his colleagues showed how aspirin works. His work was so important that he and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1982. Dr. Vane was even made a British knight for his work! Today's medical knowledge is much less than people think. We're still using leeches on patients!!!! While I sympathize with your families aggravation I understand the difficulties the doctors may be having. There may be a few doctors in the U.S. who know the answer but often times information isn't as readily shared as it should be because it almost can't be. The piece about aspirin says that innumerable articles have been written about aspirin and that's something that we've been using for over 100 years. Here's a way to express you opinion on your Doctor RATE YOUR MD or to see what others say before you go. That's a good way but the question is can doctors limit what is said about them. IMO, anyone reading a review that has personal attacks on the doctor shouldn't be taken seriously and in fact almost makes me think the complete opposite of what they are saying. If a doctor tries to enforce one of these things it will, in most cases, be like trying to get blood from a stone as well as creating horrendous media attention for the doctor. It's like putting up a beware of dog sign by a Chihuahua. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The SS comment. (no offense SS it would have been funny about anyone. Especially Deano or Beerball. JMO)... Today's medical knowledge is much less than people think. We're still using leeches on patients!!!! While I sympathize with your families aggravation I understand the difficulties the doctors may be having. There may be a few doctors in the U.S. who know the answer but often times information isn't as readily shared as it should be because it almost can't be. The piece about aspirin says that innumerable articles have been written about aspirin and that's something that we've been using for over 100 years. ... That's a good way but the question is can doctors limit what is said about them. IMO, anyone reading a review that has personal attacks on the doctor shouldn't be taken seriously and in fact almost makes me think the complete opposite of what they are saying. If a doctor tries to enforce one of these things it will, in most cases, be like trying to get blood from a stone as well as creating horrendous media attention for the doctor. It's like putting up a beware of dog sign by a Chihuahua. The stevestojan thing... it was the filter for 'sh--' for a long time. Joke, from old. Ummm... I don't know if I'd call it aggravation, and we all well understand the limitations of medicine. (I do not have these problems myself, thankfully). A lot of medicine is a guessing game, trial and error and robbing Peter to pay Paul who originally stole it from Mary. Blaming doctors for freaky sh-- and things out of our scientific/medical understanding at this time... I don't bag on that b/c I am not a trial lawyer. Our limitations are something we have to live with and just hope that cures come around for the various and sundry ailments of the body human (the mapping of the human genome, as people in the know say, was a big step, but results/actual common treatments from that are probably a couple of generations away, realistically). And, with that said, the 'Practice' quip stands. Yeah, to the bolded section. Unless any litigation from any resulting cases brought by a doctor are totally sequestered or a secret filing, this is a situation where any publicity is decidedly bad publicity, unless it's outright provable slander. And I don't know why existing slander/libel law isn't enough... except that it pertains to poste-factum and is subject to various protections, the foremost being truth, etc.... whereas this seems to have the chilling effect of the client to say anything about treatment, and w/o conditions of those protections e.g. even if what you say is 100% true, the doctor can still sue for service disparagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The stevestojan thing... it was the filter for 'sh--' for a long time. Joke, from old. Ummm... I don't know if I'd call it aggravation, and we all well understand the limitations of medicine. (I do not have these problems myself, thankfully). A lot of medicine is a guessing game, trial and error and robbing Peter to pay Paul who originally stole it from Mary. Blaming doctors for freaky sh-- and things out of our scientific/medical understanding at this time... I don't bag on that b/c I am not a trial lawyer. Our limitations are something we have to live with and just hope that cures come around for the various and sundry ailments of the body human (the mapping of the human genome, as people in the know say, was a big step, but results/actual common treatments from that are probably a couple of generations away, realistically). And, with that said, the 'Practice' quip stands. Yeah, to the bolded section. Unless any litigation from any resulting cases brought by a doctor are totally sequestered or a secret filing, this is a situation where any publicity is decidedly bad publicity, unless it's outright provable slander. And I don't know why existing slander/libel law isn't enough... except that it pertains to poste-factum and is subject to various protections, the foremost being truth, etc.... whereas this seems to have the chilling effect of the client to say anything about treatment, and w/o conditions of those protections e.g. even if what you say is 100% true, the doctor can still sue for service disparagement. I guess a lot of that was for others to read and not you but hopefully they'll understand that modern medicine is this/close to bloodlettings. I agree it's a stupid to have these guys expect people to abide by this and have a legal right to enforce it. As I said above it's a tempest in a teapot because the likelihood of this ever being enforced by one doctor is slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts