3 ms·
I think that in most instances, medical professionals are absolutely right to respond this way. They have just as much right to respond to people who write misl
by maxharris 10y ago
I think that in most instances, medical professionals are absolutely right to respond this way. They have just as much right to respond to people who write misleading or false things about them as the baker around the corner does. The fact that they provide medical care doesn't mean that people should be able to walk all over them.
As to the issue of revealing personal medical information, the patient decided to put their information up first (at least in the cases I was able to read about). At that point, any expectation of privacy vanishes completely, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Alternatives:
1) Restrict how doctors can respond to reviews. Consequences: doctors will sue patients to get misleading comments removed, require that patients sign away the right to comment on review sites as a condition of care, and barring that, doctors would have yet another reason to leave/never enter the profession. (And they have plenty of reasons to leave already! Go ask your doctor!)
2) Restrict what patients can say about doctors. Consequences: patients lose access to potentially valuable information about their doctor.
- sintaxi 10y agoAgreed. I think it is reasonable to say the patient is waiving their right to privacy when they are choosing to publicly criticize the work of the medical professional who's reputation matters a great deal. As long as the information being disclosed is in reference to defending the criticism I say its fair game.
- r2dnb 10y agoI disagree, I find this practice disgusting and unhetical. You can't have it both ways, on the one hand be a regulated occupation given special status by the state, and on the other hand claim free market rights.
- maxharris 10y agoWould you support making medicine a free occupation that has no special state status? I think that going in that direction would do a lot of good.
- r2dnb 10y agoMy point is that as soon as the state creates artificial rules - for reasons I do not judge - you need to remain coherent to avoid an explosion of the system. - Protected free Press / diluted journalist accountability, manipulations and lies - Gender equality / systemic bias against men in judgements - thus creating a new form of inequality - Plug your own To answer your message, I am not necessarily saying that free press or gender equality is bad. What I am saying is that these systemic incoherences are killing our societies right now because they are at best down played and at worst treated as afterthoughts like what you do here. It's not because the regulation seems right that we should ignore the side effects. When you decide to take the role of God - not judging if it's right or wrong - you've got to be at the level of the task. Doctors have enough protections and benefits to be expected to behave in the market following particular ethics and a particular code of conduct. The article outlines many ways they can protect their best interests while remaining compliant and keeping the system consistent.