Why should patients and others who engage in predatory litigation feel free to do so without scrutiny? Filings are public records and can be lawfully published. Why can’t the names of those who file be available as well?

As for electing which patients a doctor admits to his practice (outside emergency room obligations), the right to admit or exclude is pretty much the doctor’s choice.

Dr. Parker has some good quotes from those who would use the Hippocratic oath as an argument against this.

http://cut-to-cure.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_cut-to-cure_archive.html#107858915852511989

Since civil court filings are public matters, I have no complaint about whatever use doctors make of this information. I should note that there’s nothing new or remarkable about this sort of database. Employers and rental management companies have tracked lawsuits for a long time.

I would, however, note the unfairness in that information in the National Practitioners Database is unavailable to the public.

South Carolina Dr. 169186 botched a medical treatment so badly his insurance company paid $9.9 million to the victim. He might be your doctor. Chances are you’ll never know. Dr. 169186 is identified only by number in the National Practitioners Data Base, a federal registry that tracks doctors whose insurance has paid patients, or families of patients, who doctors accidentally killed or injured. Federal law protects Dr. 169186’s identity, as well as the identities of 36 other S.C. doctors whose insurers have paid more than $1 million each to victims of medicalerrors.

As described, the site represents information that can be used, or abused. The data on the site might be used fairly, or unfairly, rightly, or wrongly.

For example, if a patient surfaced as a malpractice claimaint several times, there is a very good chance that the patient is as interested in identifying a new potential defendant as seeking medical care. A doctor who refused to see such a patient in a non-emergency context is doing nothing wrong, in my judgment.

On the other hand, a doctor who routinely excludes any patient who has ever lodged a single complaint is probably not being fair to the patient, or his or her fellow physicians.

DoctorsKnow.Us should not be used to deny patient care
Update: Bard-Parker breaks the news among medbloggers that DoctorsKnow.Us closed shop, turned tail, and ranDoctorsKnow.Us has permanently ceased operations as of 3/9/04. The controversy this site has ignited was unanticipated and has polarized opinions…

DoctorsKnow.Us should not be used to deny patient care
Update: NPR’s ‘Talk of the Nation’ Discusses Removal of Malpractice Web Site With Plaintiff Database [free membership] Update: Bard-Parker breaks the news among medbloggers that DoctorsKnow.Us closed shop, turned tail, and ranDoctorsKnow.Us has permane…