Physician rating sites are regularly informed as to which physicians have license to use the contract language -- and plans are in the works to verify that those sites are not interfering with the pre-existing contracts between doctors and patients.
If an anonymous posting does appear, the site is informed of the contract -- and warned that if the post remains, the site may incur liability.
Dr. Segal pointed out that while web sites can't be sued for defamation, they have been successfully sued by companies who set out to enforce prior confidentiality agreements with their now ex-employees. Confidentiality agreements between doctors and patients would likely be similarly successful.
Does it violate a patient's First Amendment rights? No. The First Amendment generally applies to government action. Here, the doctor and patient are not state actors. The restrictions are minimal -- and patients remain free to report inappropriate medical care or treatment to state licensing boards, professional medical societies, third party payers, friends, family, or other doctors. They can even file a malpractice lawsuit.
Dr. Segal said that the intent is to ensure that the doctor-patient relationship remains strong. This is best accomplished by strengthening privacy protections for each party. Such protections have always been important for patients. They are equally important for physicians.
"In few other occupations is an individual's reputation more
important," said Dr. Segal. "A physician's most valuable asset, resulting
from the years of training and experience, is his or her reputation. It's
something that you can literally spend decades building and it can be
ruined in a few seconds with the click of a mouse."
'/>"/>
| SOURCE Medical Justice Services Inc. Copyright©2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved |