Posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:52:25
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Sigh, okay, here goes:
>Recent behavior by Dr. Hsiung suggests a need for further action, and for referral by qualified complainants to the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board (320 West Washington, Springfield, IL 62786).
Are we (the Babbler community) to assume that you (meaning the "we" you refer to throughout your post) are a qualified complainant? If not, golly, thanks for your public service here. It's so, er, prescient of you to provide it in advance of potential requests for same.
> Our household had already begun an investigation of Hsiung's compliance with 77 Ill. Adm. Code 250.130.
And your household would include whom? I find it odd that your post is unsigned. Surely something this serious begs for disclosure? (Oh and by my use of the word "surely" I am not calling you "shirley".)
Both of the claims are specious.
And your evidence to back this up?
>it is reasonable to consider whether a practitioner is working alone to avoid peer review.
I'm thinking of a word other than reasonable, but I can't think of an appropriate synomnym, and I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to characterize you or your post with something that also has clinical meaning.
>
> But the doctor today labeled a visitor uncivilOkay, here's the nit-picky part...Dr. Bob and his deputies in the past labelled *behavior* uncivil, not posters themselves. I know it's a semantic distinction, and I find myself surprised that you (meaning the plural "you" you refer to throughout) might have missed it.
> A physician may adamantly disagree with a professional peer, but when a physician recruits participants in a research project, then slanders those participants as "uncivil" when they cite the opinions of other good and honorable physicians, that physician is acting immorally and in violation of professional ethics.
Um, please see above.
>
> Hsiung's action today to slander yet another person he recruited to his site prompted our decision to post this information about his legal obligations.Ditto
> We are also studying the distinction between self-help groups administered by members or by qualified social or psychological professionals and those administered by a physician. It is our opinion, which we are finding precedent to support, that a physician does not somehow sidestep his professional obligation by claiming to be merely an administrator of a group.
Please cite your precendent.
>
> When a physician becomes involved in the dialogue and dynamic of a mutual self-help group by chastising members, evicting members and setting standards of conduct within the group, it becomes impossible to separate the physician's behavior from the practice of medicine.Holy cannoli! I'm glad my physician doesn't do this when he is "practicing" on me. In fact, I've never known any physician to consider such behavior as part of the practice of medicine. Imagine the coursework!
>
> A further distinction lies in the purpose of the group. Administering a group organized primarily to help cope with routine life stresses might not comprise practice of medicine. Administering a group wherein claims of a health benefit are offered by a physician in relation to specific complaints that are within that physician’s area of practice, and when the physician is an active participant in dialogue comprises practice of medicine.Please cite examples.
>
> Daily labeling people as "uncivil" is nothing more than offering a diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder without conducting any prerequisite tests other than a measure against the physicians personal preferences for conduct.Um, I hate to be repetitive, but please see response above related to labelling of people versus labelling of actions. And to be even more nit-picky, the words "civil" or "uncivil" do not appear anywhere in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder according to the DSM-IV-TR (page 706). One thing that DID catch my eye, however, which I will share with the group just because I am free associating is criteria A(2) "deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure." I like that one. :)
>
> These and other violations of professional codes of conduct are not only possible causes of action by the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board, they are cause for action in civil malpractice complaints brought by individuals who were harmed while participating in Dr. Hsiung's discussion group. If you have been harmed, or think you may have been harmed, save this message in a personal file and contact a malpractice attorney barred to practice in the State of Illinois. You might also consider reviewing the Medical Practices Act, especially the sections describing unprofessional conduct, in the context of your experiences at this site, and then contacting the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation.So I understand the purpose of your post is to recruit members for some kind of *civil* (ironic, isn't it?) lawsuit? Do I have that right?
>
> In the mean time, if you are concerned about adverse behaviors you might have developed in response to Hsiung's persistent on-line behavior, you might consider contacting a group such as http://www.computeraddiction.com/ for prompt treatment of your symptoms, and further advice on how to prevent suffering additional harm at the hands of Dr. Robert Hsiung, (Ill. lic. no. 36079310)
>
> We are also posting this message in the "adverse events" reporting page Hsiung was required to add to this site, so that he cannot hide it from proper review by his professional peers.Since you (meaning the plural you) are investigating on our (meaning the Babbler community) behalf, would you please share your investigator credentials with us?
And just for the record, I have never considered Dr. Bob to be my psychiatrist, to be practicing medicine by administering this site based on my observations since 2003, and I do not consider myself to be a *participant* (that is the word for human research. *Subjects* is passe) in a specific research study.
Sincerely,
gg/jwh
poster:gardenergirl
thread:402705
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402808.html