Comments on: More on the malpractice web site

By: medmusings

medmusings — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:00:58 +0000

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…

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:12:22 +0000

Abrupt demise of doc-suers database
Targeted by trial lawyer allies in a short but effective media campaign, the website DoctorsKnow.Us (see Mar. 9) has now closed up shop, leaving the following message: “DoctorsKnow.Us has permanently ceased operations as of 3/9/04. The controversy this…

By: medmusings

medmusings — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:18:56 +0000

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…

By: medmusings

medmusings — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:39:21 +0000

DoctorsKnow.Us should not be used to deny patient care
iHealthbeat [free registration] reported on the WSJs article on DoctorsKnow.Us which lists patients, their attorneys and expert witnesses involved in malpractice lawsuits in order to reduce “frivolous” cases. According to founder Dr. John Jones, it has…

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:46:13 +0000

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.

By: resident's wife

resident's wife — Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:45:06 +0000

To Bernie:

In NY State, information on any complaint against a doctor, including doctor’s name and address (even if it is not directly related to medical malpractice, like, insurance or tax fraud) can be found on a public website (I browsed through it myself). So, while a national database might not have any info, check out what your state offers. Also, unfortunately, a large monetary judgement against a provider does not necessarily imply that that provider is incompetent in this day and age. However, I do think that doctors have to be more proactive about keeping incompetent physicians from practicing.

By: Bernie Simon

Bernie Simon — Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:09:49 +0000

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.

By: medmusings

medmusings — Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:43:28 +0000

By: GruntDoc

GruntDoc — Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:00:48 +0000

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

By: arf

arf — Sat, 06 Mar 2004 20:41:38 +0000

As usual, we get beat over the head with the Hippocratic Oath by people who have never read the Oath.

There is NOTHING in the Hippocratic Oath that requires you to enter into a physician-patient relationship if you choose not to enter.

Remember “whatever house I may enter”, you are expected to behave in certain ways, keep secrets, not seduce anyone, stay within your field of expertise (not “cut for the stone”, leave to practitioners of that art), act with the patient’s best interests in mind and all that……but there is nothing in the Oath that says you must enter the “house” in the first place.